Talk:Consciousness causes collapse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hinduism & Taoism, eastern referencing

Its my take that there is nothing overt about this theory which alludes to or stresses "oneness" necessarily, and I see the tradition of western idealism much closer or more of a forerunner to it than eastern religious beliefs. Unless there is some direct citation I think the mention is out of place. e.g. There is still "separation" to a point even if subatomically things become indifferentiated, this doesn't go on to denote a greater oneness for all intents & purposes nor even represent a unity of things. Nagelfar 04:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --CSTAR 05:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. So if in the next few months no citation is given and no further argument is posited here, one of us will remove it. Nagelfar 22:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it suffices to wait a week and if no citation appears, delete it.--CSTAR 22:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Nagelfar 01:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. I put the flag on the passage in question yesterday. DV8 2XL 02:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The closest philosophical tradition may be Spinoza's. I think the point is that quantum collapse raises age-old philosophical debates about undefined but often indispensable terms, and it raises the question of whether it answers any of these questions. It doesn't - it just begs the question of what "oneness," "mind," "extension" etc. were meant to signify in the first place. Quantum objects are on a different level of description to philosophical concepts or religious/mystical terms. Confusing these different modes of thinking is probably a mistake, at least as far as any correspondences can be drawn (e.g. collapse = consciousness), but this is the cultural context referred to by the article. The problem here is where to draw the line between cultural artefact (where the article would deal with the collapse idea as it relates to all three types of thinking, as a cultural factor) and valid scientific connection (where the article would outline the quantum science, in which "consciousness" is obviously a stopgap term). Perhaps all you need is to separate the two? Babo.beretovac 03:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Collapse occurs at the very first conscious observer? Come on now..

As far as Wigner is concerned, his friend's consciousness is jut part of the big black box full of mysteries, with no grounds to arbitrarily distinguish from, or raise above the kitty's consciousness, or even the decaying atom's consciouness - after all the kitty and his friend are just simply a DNA molecule-consequence, a functioning system just like a decaying atom is a functioning system. To him his friend's state is still described by a wavefunction, at least until he himself looks at his friend, even though, as it appears to his friend, the wavefunction collapsed long time ago, when his friend looked. Each time a "looking" happens, the wavefunction collapses. Basically the wavefunction collapses at each and every conscious observer, not just the first one, which is the substance of Wigner's argument, that wavefunction collapse and consciousness are inseparable concepts, or experiencing reality and consciousness are inseparable.

Extra dissertation on this relativity of mental frames of reference:

You could say it's all dependent on the observer's frame of reference, and you can talk about relativity theory of wavefunction collapses, or relativity theory of consciousness, or what real is at all. The hindus say there is only mind, that's the only thing that's real, and everything else is maya, illusion. You cannot be certain about anything else around you, not even your friend's consciousness that resembles what you sense as your own conscisouness, but have you ever dreamed about other people, was their consciousness real, or was it just a figment of your imagination, something in your head, a dream? Your life could be just a dream just like Zhuangzi wonders about being a butterfly. Or, just like Descartes concluded, during his quest to cleanse his mind from all the superstitions and untruths it was filled with, to come up with a system of certainty about the world, to come up with a kind of rigorous Euclid's Elements for philosophy, he arrived to one truth "I think therefore I am" but he got no further. Rationalism could only get him so far, giving some kind of certainty that a mind exists, but nothing about anything else. In response to this rationalism attempt, David Hume came with the wrecking ball of empiricism stating that knowledge comes through the senses, and Descartes quest to know the world we live in just by looking inside his own mind was futile, he would forever get stuck at the "I think therefore I am" part, and get no further truths about the world. Basically, knowing the world is like knowing Zhuangzi's butterfly, knowing the dream, knowing the maya, and we only have the limited certainty that empiricism and trust placed into the easily tricked senses give, which is has a lower grade of credit rating/trust than Descartes' single truth, but it's all we got when dealing with the dream, we have nothing better. Lower grade of truth, because there is no ultimate certainty, in a sense Descartes' awareness of self could be just a dream too, the mind dreaming the dream could be itself unreal, just a dream, in a sense you could have dreams dreaming dreams, in a neverending progression, or consciousnesses aware of consciousnesses, in neverending progression, Wigner's consciouness becoming aware of his friend's consciousness becoming aware of the kitty's consciousness becoming aware of the decaying atoms consciousness or "thing" (for lack of a better word) becoming aware of the nucleon's "thing", existence... etc. When a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound, if nobody's there to hear it? Does the tree even exist without a consciousness? We are used to the world, to Nature existing independent of our awareness, as infant's become aware when a blue square is hidden behind a box, we still hold it in our mind, that it exists even if we can't see it, and reality hasn't failed us yet, because we keep seeing it reemerge. It's just how the dream is structured, and we become complacent in this mentality of independent existence, until we meet up with quantum mechanics and Schroedinger's kitten, and we cannot be certain which way it's true. Is there an independent reality or is everything just a part of your dream? Are we part of Nature, or is Nature just part of us? How about a compromise, a little bit of both? Basically I'm trying to present the one side by Wigner about wavefunction collapse and consciousness being inseparable in the best possible light, but just like you, I don't personally like this whole idea, I'd like to see the world in the usual, more comfortable, less paradoxical, existing "independent of us" way. Perhaps there is a way to describe it the comfy way too, just like there are ways of Taylor expansions or Fourier series for the exact same functions in mathematics, or, geometry can be viewed through Euclidian or non-Euclidian spectacles, reality yields to different views, different interpretations, we just need to find the familiar Taylor series expansion way of looking at quantum mechanics instead of the Fourier wave way of currently seeing things. Of course there is no arbitrary reason to say that either Fourier or Taylor series are better for a function, they are equivalent "in and of themselves", it's all relative, we just prefer using one or the other method depending on the situation, depending on how many terms we need to carry. Perhaps there is a way, keep your fingers crossed, otherwise we're stuck with this seemingly paradoxical (absurd means laughable in greek) way to describe reality, which isn't paradoxical, just like Fourier series are not paradoxical, they are just not something we're used to, so we laugh at it. Hope you found some good humor(absurdity) in all this, because what's life worth without good humor. This indifferent Nature finds many ways to entertain us, or in Einstein worldview, the not so indifferent Nature, or God, who doesn't play with dice, who's subtle, but not malicious, finds many ways to entertain us. These two views are, of course, equivalent ways of looking at the same thing, depending on what you feel comfortable with, ultimately neither is right, nor wrong, everything has two sides, everything has yin yang, just like the quantum wavefunction has many sides before you collapse it. When you collapse it, the wavefunction either just loses the other side after the collapse, or the other side progresses on as in the many worlds interpretation, the two interpretations, you guessed it, neither being right nor wrong, but equivalent. :) Sillybilly 04:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Quantum Immortality

User:Sillybilly/scratchpad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillybilly (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose that this section be deleted altogether, or else reformulated as a synopsis of an established viewpoint (with accompanying citations). It is needlessly speculative, not to mention incoherent. Vel 09:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does this article even exist?

This article has little or no scientific value and is meaningless outside the scope of quantum mechanics. Few of its references have any scientific backing and are full of new age nonsense. This article smells like someone trying to spread some philosophical viewpoint. It should be part of Quantum Mechanics under the "Philosophical Consequences" section or part of the Interpretation of quantum mechanics article where readers can compare this article with scientifically accepted views of quantum mechanics. It certainly shouldn't exist as an independent article. Dr. Morbius 03:25-04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

it's a large article, it would be unwieldy to merge it under a section in the main QM article, and it's already in the category of QM interpretations. -- itistoday (Talk) 21:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea is widespread enough that it deserves an article, but it should read in the first paragraph that this is not a scientific theory. It is unfalsifiable, and physically uninteresting. It's kind of like the theory that undetectable microscopic green men are responsible for physics, or that the universe disappears when you close your eyes. --Bmk 03:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You are completely right. This theory is unfalsifiable due to the fact that I couldn't perform a laboratory experiment that tests consciousness in the absence of quantum mechanical effects. Not only that but decoherence alone would render this theory completely untenable. Dr. Morbius 00:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, and yet, it does raise the most important question of what it means to actually measure something. One can not simply close one's eyes and expect the philosophical questions to disappear. Until all the paradoxes of quantum mechanics are resolved, it is necessary to keep an open mind to the possibilities. Regardless of whether you personally believe in the idea or not, it remains an important philosophical concept. If we pretend this is not so, we should also throw out such meaningless self-referential philosophical statemants as "I think therefore I am". CCC forms part of the discussion of the nature of the universe, regardless of its ultimate validity or usefullness. Wikipedia is here to provide factual information. That CCC has been discussed in physics and that conclusions have been drawn about it is all true. That is why the article exists. Dndn1011 11:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article may raise the question of what it means to actually measure something. But if so it does (in my opinion) in such a way that the question is barely recognizable and the discussion pretty much incomprehensible. Is this "area of thought" philosophy or physics? Wanderer57 02:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's philosophy of physics. There are better discussions under measurement in quantum mechanics, wave function collapse, etc. It is hard to make the article clearer or more rigourous when the basic thesis is vague. It is hard to just ignore the subject when it has the backing of some notable figures and a lot of popular currency. 1Z 10:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noting the other articles. I'll take a look. Wanderer57 14:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's my observation...this article is incomprehensible to the average human being. Would anyone who actually grasps this concept please start the article off with a description of the phenomenon in plain English? I've heard about it before, but would like an easy to understand explanation of the concept. Save the technical gibberish for later in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.75.201 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is OK.

What, on the other hand, is not OK, is that prominent physicists do genuinely seem to have a hard time separating belief, wishful thinking, and subconscious religious needs.

If paragons like von Neumann, Wigner, Dyson, and Penrose can't separate "consciousness" from Physics, and if Einstein couldn't separate religion from Cosmology ("God doesn't play dice") -- all I can say is, we have a long way to go before we can hope to understand the Universe.

To recap: the contents of the article describe a point of disgrace in Science, but the article itself is good, accurate, and of sufficient quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwrede (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hah! You must be forgetting the uncertainty principle, and because of it philosophy such as described in this article will always have a place in science, because it's all on the same playing field as any other theory that scientists can come up with to describe "everything", after all, how can you objectively describe something when in all instances it is impossible for you to separate yourself or your scientific instruments from the environment around them? If you feel that "consciousness causes collapse" is unscientific, which it very well probably is, then you'll have to admit that TOEs such as String Theory are unscientific as well since it is impossible to test them. -- itistoday (Talk) 00:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Separataion of consciousness from Physics" is a bit ambiguous. What do you mean by that? Of course they are separate. Like chemistry and physics are. If you are implying that consciousness is pseudo-science and not a legit scientific study, then you probably havent been reading papers in the scientific community lately. But then again, it's a good thing that this denial continues in my opinion, because it leaves more room for others like us to establish themselves as pioneer hopefuls in this new emerging field. Who knows which one of us might become the new Max Planck of this new emerging field, while many others waste away their talents on demoted classical worldviews of the 20th century? There are already tons of hard core scientific textbooks being written. It's turning into a goldrush of science. And my hunch is that the next Max Planck wont even be a physicist, but he'll rather probably be a cognitive/neuro scientist of sorts. They are the only ones that have the guts to confidently openly challenge 20th century science. Totally awesome. Old school physicists will meanwhile continue to go down the endless roads of superstrings, Brane theory, and all similar talent sinks.--Zereshk 08:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pseudo-science

I agree that a lot of modern physics today, specifically string theory, supersymmetry etc., seems to be mostly a contrivance that happens to work mathematically but so far have been unable to provide any testable predictions (hopefully when the Large Hadron Collider goes online we might discover something). But thats the way science works; you observe something you don't understand, you come up with an explanation, and then you see if it fits with reality. "Consciousness causes collapse" doesn't satisfy those requirements and as such should be classified as pseudo-science. Emphasis on the "pseudo." If you are claiming that this is truly scientific research then why do groups like Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab not allow rigorous scientific analysis of their results as requested by people like James Randi, A conversation between the professional debunker James Randi and Brenda J. Dunne, or how do you answer criticism such as: An article critical of PEAR's research

The source of consciousness is a legitimate field of scientific study but using quantum mechanics to help explain it is a road that leads nowhere. Please don't use Lee Smolin's criticism of string theory and the research frenzy surrounding it to defend "Consciousness Causes Collapse." I'm sure he would be greatly insulted.

Anyone can be a philosopher that's why it always bothers me when some prominent scientist makes a statement that is even remotely religious. As soon as they start commenting on something that is outside their field of study they're as much an expert as I am. Their scientific training doesn't give their philosphical statements any more credibility than mine.

By the way, consciousness doesn't collapse wavefunctions, performing a measurement does. If I have a device that measures quantum mechanical events and prints the results on a piece of paper the results are on that paper whether someone reads it or not. The results don't magically appear on the paper when I decide to read it. Dr. Morbius 21:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Schrodinger would certainly disagree with the above statement. If you put your device that measures quantum mechanical events and prints the results out on a piece of paper into a box that you do not open until you read the results, you magically have Schrodinger's cat experiment with your equipment instead of a cat. The theory of CCC necessarily implies that nothing is defined (no wave functions collapse) until it interacts with consciousness (or a qualia), while you are proposing an even more arbitrary theory that your equipment collapses the wave function. I ask by what scientific data and experiments do you purpose gives evidence that your science equipment (composed of nothing but matter) is the more likely candidate to casually act upon matter collapsing the wave function? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.18.76.206 (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

His name was Erwin, and the Cat thing was intended as a reductio, not a serious proposition. 1Z 20:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking once said "When I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my gun,". The proof that consciousness is unnecessary is the fact the universe existed long before any conscious observers were around to experience it. Dr. Morbius 20:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Again Dr. Morbius, you continue to make arbitrary assumptions. Show me by what experiment you conclude that any wave function collapsed before consciousness was introduced to the universe. The theory of CCC would state the universe can go any amount of time without the state of anything being defined (without wave functions collapsing) until it is necessary to be defined for the sake of consciousness. We may see stars billions of light years away, but their wave functions needed not collapse until necessary for a conscious observer to observe them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhall0608 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

CCC is not a theory. I wouldn't even call it a hypothesis since it makes no predictions which can be tested. How is consciousness different from any other physical process? It is the product of chemical and physical processes in the brain. The same type of processes that take place everywhere else in the universe. CCC implies that consciousness is different and as such that places it clearly in the category of pseudoscience. Otherwise why would it associate itself with pseudoscientific garbage like that referenced in this article. Dr. Morbius 22:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Again you are providing more arbitrary, unscientific statements based on your personal beliefs as unproven as the existence of God. Modern physics and chemistry can not explain the human brain as anything other than a computer and main stream science has never even attempted to include the phenomena central to all human beings of consciousness. We've managed to show that when you pinch a human a specific brain patters occur, but no explanation on why you feel pain when that specific brain pattern (or rather organization of atoms) occurs. The fact that CCC provides a explanation self consistent, and consistent with experimental data that includes this neglected phenomena makes it of special interest. If someday with new science there is found a way to experimentally demonstrate where wave functions actually first collapse, then CCC will be falsifiable, then science may for once start explaining more about this universe than just simple mechanical laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhall0608 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"You" are the sum of all the physical processes that take place in your brain. To suggest otherwise is to claim that there is something separate from the brain that affects consciousness. Any claim of that nature clearly belongs in the realm of pseudoscience. CCC will never be falsifiable since it is impossible to perform any tests on a human or animal brain that would be outside the influence of quantum mechanical effects. Science will eventually explain everything through the use of "simple mechanical laws." If something is unexplainable then our current knowledge is insufficient to explain it or it is being misinterpreted. To invoke supernatural or other unscientific methods to help explain something is to take a road that leads to a dead end. Dr. Morbius 20:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Science will eventually explain everything through the use of "simple mechanical laws." That is a ridiculous and downright unscientific thing to say. You go ahead and believe that, but don't go around preaching such trash to other people please, that would lower you to the likes of Christian Fundamentalists me thinks. -- itistoday (Talk) 20:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying that science will eventually explain everything is an unscientific claim? That's ridiculous. If you believe that it will take more than science to explain the universe then it is you and your colleagues who are misleading people by filling their heads with trash and other pseudoscience nonsense. You can go ahead and keep believing that your discoveries are being suppressed by the "science establishment" but until you understand how science works and participate in the "scientific method" your "research" will lead nowhere. Dr. Morbius 20:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It must be lonely knowing for certain that you are nothing more than random atoms bouncing around and that your life consists of nothing more than a biological computer with inputs. I am so sorry that you have been tricked into this belief by the illusion that it is scientific, and the culture that tells you science is truth. I hope some day you will know you are more than that. [nhall0608] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhall0608 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a middle ground between your two statements? I would say: "Science will eventually explain everything" is an open question. "Science will eventually explain everything through simple mechanical laws" -- I very much doubt that. For example, quantum mechanics does not count as simple or mechanical IMHO. Wanderer57 20:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC) {For sake of clarity, I was referring to the statements by Itistoday and Dr. Morbius.) Wanderer57 22:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It must be lonely knowing for certain that you are nothing more than random atoms. Absolutely not. It is you who needs to invoke metaphysical nonsense in order to make yourself feel like you are something more than you really are. I find the fact that such complex structures as galaxies, stars, organisms and the human brain can arise from "simple mechanical laws" as incredibly wondrous and fascinating. And I don't feel the need to throw up my hands in despair when I encounter something I don't understand and resort to unscientific nonsense to help me deal with it. I would say: "Science will eventually explain everything" is an open question. It's not an open question. If you believe that then you're no better than the religious fanatics who deny reality and use religion when they encounter something they don't understand. I use the term "simple mechanical laws", that was not a term I originated by the way, in a metaphorical sense not literally. Dr. Morbius 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Doctor, I have to disagree. Science has not yet explained everything. Can we agree on that? I don't see then why keeping an open mind about whether science EVENTUALLY WILL explain everything should bother you or cause you to say what you just said. To me, insisting that science must have answers to everything, even though it does not have them now, is like some religious extremist who insists that....(I'm not going to finish this sentence because there is no need to insult someone just to make my point. I'm sure you can complete that sentence.)

Science can't explain everything now because we lack sufficient information or the devices necessary to acquire that information. This is the way science has always worked. Over one hundred years ago there was doubt as to the existence of atoms but that didn't stop scientists from eventually figuring out that atoms existed and every other discovery that resulted from that. To me, insisting that science must have answers to everything, even though it does not have them now ... if you had made that claim one hundred years ago you would have been given funny looks. If that lack of knowledge, one hundred years ago, didn't stop them from making further discoveries why should today be any different. Dr. Morbius 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As for "simple mechanical laws", I gather your point really is that science will sometime be able to explain "everything", not that those explanations will necessarily be simple. Is that a fair way of putting it? Thanks, Wanderer57 03:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. Dr. Morbius 19:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I introduced the term "simple mechanical laws". What I really should have said was, "physical law". I used the term simple referring to the distinction between the hard problem of consciousness and the easy problem of consciousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.18.76.206 (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate this clarification but unfortunately I don't understand it. What is the "easy problem of consciousness"? (I'm probably better to tackle the easy one first.)

I'm interested in this but I'm in over my head. Can people who think they understand the article please take a look at my new section "May we go back to basics please?" at the end of the Talk article. Thanks. Wanderer57 22:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"It must be lonely knowing for certain that you are nothing more than random atoms bouncing around and that your life consists of nothing more than a biological computer with inputs." Interesting. Having thought about religion--namely, why certain people "need" religion (or perhaps better, just a belief in a supreme being) while others do not--I have come to conclude that for those who hold a firm belief in a god, were this belief to suddenly be shattered, they indeed would feel "lonely," as you say. I'd go further to assume that many would even feel lost and (perhaps very profoundly) afraid. I can imagine a certain level of terror would exist by virtue of having to come to terms with your life not having any ultimate purpose greater than what we experience in this life here and now. Then there would be further issues such as what to base one's morality on. Certainly, it is easier to have a Bible or a Church tell you what is "right" and "wrong" rather than to go through the painstaking process of conjuring up some other non-religious basis for what constitutes 'moral' and 'immoral'--but, at any rate, I digress. I agree with you that "it must be lonely knowing for certain..." but it is only lonely for that person who "knows" otherwise in the first place. There is, apparently, a whole plethora of wonderful things that a belief in a higher power is able to do for people. Easing, or preventing, feelings of loneliness is one of these things. Some people do not need religion to combat loneliness or fear (even if some might at times wish they too could have at their disposal some easy solution or answer, such as God). No, not only is "lonely" not quite the word, but I imagine loneliest of all would be if I were to look around at the world and actually think that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent god had masterminded all of this. It makes a lot of sense that a "good," loving, all-powerful god would plant us here, blind and clueless albeit at the same time granting us the humorous element of "free will." Well, I'll be... The idea that we are all "nothing more than a biological computer," compared to that, seems absolutely absurd. 70.59.146.224 (talk)

"You" are the sum of all the physical processes that take place in your brain.-As science has put forth absolutely no explanation as to how matter gives rise to the phenomenon of consciousness that we all individually observe, this statement would also be clearly in the realm of pseudoscience, as there is no known way to falsify it. It is in fact nothing more than your own personal beliefs. CCC will never be falsifiable since it is impossible to perform any tests on a human or animal brain that would be outside the influence of quantum mechanical effects.-You seem to like to state your thoughts as fact before proving them. Let me disprove this statement by giving an example of performing a test on a human or animal brain outside the influence of quantum mechanical effects. Since we’re negating quantum mechanics, we’re dealing with just classical and relative mechanics, which is deterministic. Since it is deterministic, it can be written into a computer program assuming all knowledge of non-quantum mechanical effects. After that program in with either human DNA or animal DNA an egg and a sperm, let them meet and program around them a hospitable environment until they grow into the human or animal you want, and you can do whatever tests you’d like outside of quantum mechanical effects. Granted we may not have that computing power for several decades. Science will eventually explain everything through the use of “simple mechanical laws.”-This is determinism, this assumes there is no such thing as free will, that is unproven and again just your own belief that science will eventually show that. Currently quantum mechanics shows that we have not yet explained seemingly random events. If something is unexplainable then our current knowledge is insufficient to explain it or it is being misinterpreted.-I completely agree, right now consciousness is completely unexplainable and I’m glad to see interpretations like CCC that actually try to bring this scientifically neglected phenomena into the realm of science where we can actually try to establish facts about it, instead of ignoring it, or pretending it does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.18.76.206 (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As science has put forth absolutely no explanation as to how matter gives rise to the phenomenon of consciousness that we all individually observe. That's not true. There are plenty of purely physical explanations for what causes consciousness. CCC claims that quantum mechanical effects are large enough to affect the functioning of your brain specifically large enough to affect neuronal functions. Claiming that someday it will be possible to build a computer that can simulate the human brain down to the level of atoms is a stretch. Until that day finally arrives, and I believe that day will be a long time coming if it ever arrives at all, CCC will remain unfalsifiable. Quantum mechanics is one of the "simple mechanical laws" to which I refer. Having an explanation for something doesn't make it deterministic since at the fundamental level of QM the randomness inherent in QM will lead to chaos which will essentially make certain things unpredictable. I’m glad to see interpretations like CCC that actually try to bring this scientifically neglected phenomena into the realm of science. If people really want to advance the research into consciousness then they need to stick to the scientific method and not resort to pseudoscience when they can't explain something. Also, if CCC needs to associate itself with JZ knight and "Ramtha" in order to explain consciousness then it will never be taken seriously and will continue to be ridiculed until it frees itself from the pseudoscientific nonsense promulgated by her and others. Dr. Morbius 20:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of purely physical explanations for what causes consciousness-Not true, only science that tries to correlate feelings with the physical states of the mind. There is no explanation on how an atom can give rise to part of a qualia, or feeling. CCC claims that quantum mechanical effects are large enough to affect the brain. - No it does not, your are confusing consciousness with free will. Just because I am conscious of what my body and mind are going through does not mean I can control them. That control can easily be an illusion, and CCC does not argue against that. if it ever arrives at all, CCC will remain unfalsifiable - if CCC is unfalsifiable, then assuming that consciousness does not collapse wave functions is also unfalsifiable, which means its possible and that possibility does hold significant ramifications to the meaning of life. Now if you want to go on believing the world is flat because you currently have no way to prove it flat or round, then fine. I'd personally like to keep in mind it could be either. nhall0608

Believing something to be true doesn't make it so. If there is no evidence to back up a claim then it remains pure speculation. I've stated before that speculation is fine but it should not be treated as fact. You can speculate all you want but don't speculate about things which contradict reality or add unnecessary complexity. If you do that then you are no different than the people who believe that the pyramids were build by aliens rather than the simpler explanation that they were built by Egyptians. There are plenty of theories going around concerning parallel universes and extra dimensions and these theories involve perfectly valid mathematics but until there is incontrovertible proof to back them up they will remain pure speculation. Fun to think about and discuss but nothing more. Dr. Morbius 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe anyone has treated CCC as a fact. It is merely an interpretation of the scientific evidence (I yield that I used the term theory incorrectly). It does not contradict reality or any known science, and therefore is as valid an interpretation as any. I suppose from your world view, this interpretation would add complexity to how you viewed the universe, I would argue however that the complexity is necessary as the answer to the question of whether CCC is correct or not has a profound impact on the meaning of life. As you have assumed the answer to the question of CCC is indeed that it is not so, that has made a profound impact on the way you look at the world, and who you consider yourself to be, and how you will interact with the world in the future.

The main thing I would like to say is that I reject your notion that everything that does not fit into your current world view, the one currently so popularly linked to science, as unscientific as it is, is considered false until proven otherwise. I find it hypocritical and ironical that your words continue to say, ‘what I believe is truth unless proven otherwise’, and call yourself a scientist. That gives science a bad name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.18.76.206 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe in reality. Reality that is backed up by hard facts. Science has always involved skepticism of claims until they are backed up solid evidence. I find it hypocritical and ironical that your words continue to say, ‘what I believe is truth unless proven otherwise’, and call yourself a scientist. That gives science a bad name., so what you're saying is that science gives itself a bad name by doing the very same thing that I do? if you want to believe in something before it is proven that's fine but don't go calling it fact. Dr. Morbius 20:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem with, for example, Amit Goswami's interpretation. This simply means that that definition of consciousness, the one we're used to normally, is not correct in this application. You could say instead, for example, as Peter Russell says, that consciousness is fundamental, and therefore it has existed as long as the entire universe, and in fact is the entire universe. It's just a different definition of consciousness. -- itistoday (Talk) 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. Peter Russell's credentials in the area of quantum mechanics are sorely lacking and I doubt he is given any credibility by any legitimate scientist. His explanation is like saying that all physical processes are caused by tiny green gremlins that can not be detected in anyway. You can't just brush away arguments by making up some nonsensical counterargument which is unprovable. Dr. Morbius 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello? I'm not brushing away arguments. I'm showing you a counter-point. Peter Russell's ideas are just as valid as String Theory, and unlike String Theory, they make a whole lot of sense. -- itistoday (Talk) 06:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Have Peter Russel's ideas been published in a peer-reviewed phsyics journal? 1Z 10:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[For sake of clarity, is that meant to be "physics" or "psychics"? Wanderer57 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC) ]

You're obviously missing the point. It doesn't matter whether they were published in a peer reviewed journal, because as with String Theory, they are not scientifically testable. In other words, the fact that papers have been written about String Theory makes it no less a viable candidate for truth. There have been "peer-reviewed" papers on totally corrupt and flawed "scientific ideas" before. String Theory has no experimental data, and as such, String Theory is not science. -- itistoday (Talk) 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The testability or otherwise is string theory is controversial. WP is explicitly based on verifiability, so your comments about truth are not particularly relevant. 1Z 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been many predictions made by string theory that are testable such as the strength of gravity at small scales and the maximum size of the extra dimensions. When the LHC goes live next year several of these will be tested. I don't know if string theory is correct or not and we won't know for a year. In the mean time I won't speculate about things which can not be tested and call it science. It may be fun but it isn't science. CCC falls into that category. Dr. Morbius 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Morbius, I am not claiming that CCC is a science. I was merely responding to this statement of yours: The proof that consciousness is unnecessary is the fact the universe existed long before any conscious observers were around to experience it. -- itistoday (Talk) 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you know? You can't know, that is the point. You cannot prove it. You are in fact making an assumption. In your frame of reference it is impossible for you to prove that anything exists prior to your observation of it. You assume it existed in that state before you observed it, because you believe that to be the case. Yes this does create some bewlidering questions, such as "if someone else observes it before me, did not the wave function already collapse?". Well perhaps wave functions are all local to each consciousness. That is the only possible conclusion if CCC is correct. This would mean that each of us inhabits out own reality. Scary stuff. But you can;t prove this wrong which is why the theory is not falslifiable. Because it is not falsifiable it cannot be classed as proto-science. But this is not pseudo-science either, because it does scrictly fit what we strictly observe. It is more of a philosophical expression of a possibility of how the universe works. It is on the same level as the question of the existence of god. The place for religion and sprituality is usually where science fails to provide further explanation. Dndn1011 21:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I must answer in segments to address all points brought up:

Not long ago, going to the moon was not even pseudo science. It was science fiction.

1. As for the PEAR critiques:
   1. There will always be skeptics to every theory that is in its infancy. 100 years ago, going to the Moon was not even "pseudo-science", it was science fiction.
   2. The PEAR critiques have been answered on repeated occasions. One should care to seek responses to critics, otherwise one seeks the risk of becoming a dogmatist. Randi is on that list.[1]
   3. What surprises me about the Randi et al critics is that people always assume that just because someone offers a criticism that that is proof enough that the research is fatally flawed. To me, that is just plain stupidity.
   4. Ive read James Randi's claims. He claims that PEAR merely threw together a load of data and looked for patterns. Interestingly, when presented with data, he responded "anyone can find patterns if they change the data enough". People who accuse others of massaging data to fit their preconceived notions fail to appreciate that such accusations cut both ways. i.e., biased assessments can just as easily confirm or deny the true situation. So when it comes to assessing the validity of one person's opinion vs. 25 years of laboratory data, the data is going to win that argument.
   5. Randi claims that PEAR found no statistical significance in their results. That shows Randi hasnt even examined the PEAR data. The whole point of the PEAR experiments were that there is statistical significance, and a large one in fact.
   6. Randi has resorted to name calling all who oppose him. To me, that is a sign of someone not to be taken seriously. People in search of a truth, approach and investigate it with an open mind, considering all possibilities. Randi also attacked Brian Josephson for his theories in 2001, on a BBC Radio program about Josephson’s interest in possible connections between quantum physics and consciousness, for which Randi came under attack himself.
   7. Randi is not a scientist. Hes an entertainer. And his prize is a farce. As Ray Hyman has pointed out, this "prize" cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view because "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone."
2. Lee Smolin of course might be offended if his book was used to defend "Consciousness Causes Collapse". But nobody is doing that. His book only points to the fact that physics R&D has lost its way. My point as well. People can deny all they want. All the better for those with an open mind who can reign freely and reap the possible rewards of pioneership.
3. That QM is being used to understand consciousness is not something "new age" or even new. One should refer to the scientific literature [2] before making such claims. QM is being used to propagate theories of consciousness, like it or not.
4. Consciousness by itself doesn't collapse the wavefunction. Measurement does. The measurement however has a vehicle that enables the act of measurement. It is called the "observer", and the people mentioned in this article believe that the observer is the same vehicle that manifests as consiousness. Weinberg and many others dont believe this. But many others do. Your results on a pad of paper technically are not "results" until they are observed. (C'mon people, remember Schro's Cat paradox? Remember the Young double slit? It's the EXACT same thing.)

Anyway, BTW, the article does noeed some work. I have to get back to my lab. Peace :) --Zereshk 03:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer your points:

1. A website that is a front for paranormal studies has little or no authority in deciding who is being dogmatic or not.
2. When criticism is offered and not responded to or refuted by valid scientific evidence then the criticism is valid and the research is flawed.
3. 25 years of flawed scientific data isn't going to win any argument. There is no place for opinion in science. The only thing that matters is solid evidence derived from repeatable experiments produced under laboratory conditions.
4. The statistical significance that you refer to is virtually insignificant as shown by an article critical of PEAR's research
5. Brian Josephson discredits his achievements by advocating paranormal phenomenon. Just because he made a significant discovery involving superconductors doesn't mean his belief in paranormal phenomenon should give that field any credibility.
6. Ray Hyman should be the last person you quote to defend your point. He would be a much greater critic of your viewpoints than James Randi as shown by The Evidence for Psychic Functioning.
7. Just because people are attempting to use QM to understand consciousness doesn't prove that QM has any effect on consciousness. Especially considering that this area of research has been heavily criticized by people who know more about Quantum Mechanics or neurobiology than I do [3].

And finally I'm going to ask that you include a section describing criticisms and opponents of this hypothesis. Dr. Morbius 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I think adding a criticisms section is a good idea, as long as it doesnt harbor any final verdict of sorts. Lets let people make their own decisions, and not make decisions for them. I'll help with adding references to both pro and con arguments.
2. I dont think your points 1 thru 5 need answering. If someone is interested, they'll go and do some digging. All these critics have been answered multiple times. There is a reason why the signal to noise ratio is so low in these experiments, resulting in such low statistical significance, which obviously is being mis-interpreted by skeptics. References are out there.
3. In fact I specifically chose Ray Hymen: If he, of all people, is dismissing Randi, then you know Randi is way off the mark.
4. Regarding your last point, I must remind you that this all is just a theory. A theory is nothing more than a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction. Nothing is "proven" one way or the other.

In the end, all I will say is that people are free to choose whether or not Von Neumann, Wigner, Stapp, Walter Heitler, Fritz London, Roger Penrose[4] and a wholoe legion of other scientists[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] are suspected of "fraud" for studying "pseudo-science". And the reason I mention people like these is for those who must keep refering to big names to justify their position. Otherwise, the literature is out there.--Zereshk 14:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Great job Zereshk! And let's not forget Niels Bohr, whose coat of arms had the yin-yang symbol on it, and Schrodinger who said that he got the idea for the wave function from the Vedanta and Hindu mysticism!  :-) -- itistoday (Talk) 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I tried adding as many "against" links as I could. If there are any more, please do add. I dont want to give the impression that there are more pro links than con ones (and hence give weight to one side of the argument). Cheers.--Zereshk 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am more philosopher than scientist but here are my thoughts.

At the end of the 19th century, physisists thought they had everything "wrapped up"- untill they looked a little closer. I think that is where we are now with regards to understanding what I would call, "deep reality". Dr Morbius and others like him, niavely believe we have everything "wrapped up", and it is only a matter of time before we can explain, (expain away?) consiousness, in purely physical, ,mechanistic, terms. I think, however, that as we look closer at consiousness, we will find that it defies typical scientific analysis.

Just as quantum mechanics cannot be understood in classical terms, the "problem of consiousness" may force us to a radical reassesment of what underlies reality. I think that the investigation of consiousness in quantum measurement could turn quantum physics on its head, just as the investigaion of black body radiation turned classical physics on its head a century ago.

It has been pointed out that from a scientific point of view, consiousness is unnessessary. It is possible to envision a biological or mechanical robot capable of mimicing all of the funcions of a human being- without it being consious. Yet, not only does consiousness exist, it forms the very basis of our being. Dr Morbius will will no doubt say consiousness arises from purely physical properties of the brain. No brain, no consiousness. This is a possibility, albiet, one that strips all meaning from life.

One must ask, however, WHY? Why would nature create something as unnessessary and ultimately useless as consiousness, when an unconsious machine can funcion just as well, if not better? (As a scientist, you must ask this question, and you must ask it seriously.)

Might it not be, that consiousness is a Fundamental aspect of creation. We discovered in the last century that matter and energy are fundamentaly, "one". Why not consiousness as well?

I find it odd and ironic, that the most fundamental reality of our existance, namely "I am aware", presents such difficulty for scientists.

Surely, this is because consiousness cannot be measured like other phenomina. It is in the end, the final step in the process. It is the blank slate against which all measurement can be "observed". One cannot write in empty air. You must have a blank sheet of paper- a ground, so to speak, to write on. Is not consiousness - awareness, the "ground" against which all measurement, all experience, all meaning, is written? As such, is it "knowable" in the scientific sense?

Can empty space be measured in the sense of it being "something". No, we only recognize it by virtue of the fact that it is "not something". Yet we do not doubt that space "exists" in some sense. Indeed, if space did not exist, could anything exist?

I would possit the same principle, though more radical, for consiousness. As space forms the ground for matter, by virue of being Not Matter, consiousness forms the "ground" of both space and matter, as well as time and every other created thing.

Crazy?

Consider: without consiousness, without awareness, there is no one to experience space, time, matter, gravity or anything else. Without an experiencer, can anything truely be said to exist? In this view, consiousness is the creator.

It can still be argued that consiousness is a "figment of the brain", an aberation of nature, but that is, if nothing else, an estheticaly unsatisfactory answer. It denies that the fundamental reality of our existence is, "I am aware".

The idea that consiousness is fundamental to the universe, just like matter, energy, space and time, is no less scientific than the idea that it somehow emerges from the complexity of the brain, and it perhaps fits better with the observed facts of quantum physics.

Just my two cents. 72.87.11.150 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant to editing the article.1Z (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This article lacks focus

What exactly is this article supposed to be about? Is it supposed to claim that consciousness is a requirement for collapsing wave functions (as its name implies) or that consciousness is affected by quantum mechanical effects or that there is a connection between reality and consciousness (which really belongs under philosophy) etc. Which is it? You need to pick one and remove the irrelevant material. Dr. Morbius 21:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Only the first is relevant. The rest belongs on Quantum mind, but be careful of notability, OR, etc. 1Z 00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Decoherence

In any case, if consciousness really does play a role in the choice of particular outcomes then it must be the consciousness of the measuring aparatus which contains the distinct outcome states and not the human experimentalist who reads the dials.

Whilst I am sympathetic to the overall tone of the recent addition, this seems a bit glib. The CCC proponent can always claim that measuring instruments have no distinct state until someone looks at them. How can you disprove that? 1Z 12:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The main objective for me is to take out the "observer" language from the discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.206.51.226 (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't have to disprove anything. It's up to the person making the claim to prove it. This entire article is nonsense and no part of it is provable. Dr. Morbius 20:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Science contains axioms, the main one being that our perceived reality is real. That we do not exist in The Matrix or in other words we are not just a brain in some laboratory hooked up to a computer dictating our reality. By definition, an axiom is not provable, and since science rests on a few fundamental axioms, it would seem by your logic that everything scientific is nonsense and should be removed from Wikipedia. Am I missing something? --nhall0608 —Preceding comment was added at 19:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing the mathematical usage of axiom with the natural science theory usage. In natural science theories axioms are taken as self-evident truth not requiring proof. The statement "measuring instruments have no distinct state until someone looks at them" doesn't come anywhere near being an axiom or being self-evident therefore it requires proof. In fact the opposite statement "measuring instruments have a distinct state regardless of whether someone looks at them" comes much closer to being axiomatic or self-evident. Dr. Morbius 01:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"measuring instruments have a distinct state regardless of whether someone looks at them" is not self-evident after the discovery of the fact that this does not remain true on the quantum level. Meaning that the alternitive to CCC is not self-evident and requires the same proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.18.76.206 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What instruments do you know of that are small enough to be affected by quantum mechanics? I'm talking about the actual instrument itself, not the probe. So, scanning electron microscopes don't count and neither do scanning tunneling microscopes since both of these are very large devices. Besides I said "comes much closer to being axiomatic ..." not that it was axiomatic. The alternative to CCC does not require the same proof since I can observe it and see it happening. The CCC proponent will claim that observing the instrument caused its wave function to collapse but they can't prove it since they can't provide any evidence that the instrument was in a superposition of states before the observation took place. Considering that QM effects disappear for objects larger than a few atoms and taking decoherence into account any claim that QM can affect objects large enough to be experienced by humans, without the aid of any devices, is a specious claim. Dr. Morbius 20:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If an instrument is set up specifically to detect quantum events, would it not by definition be affected by quantum mechanics? I believe this was the whole point of Schrödinger's cat experiment, which back fired on Schrödinger, that making a quantum effect trigger a sequence of events in the macro caused macro events (or instruments) to also have the same property as the quantum particle of multiple possible states until observed. Is the Schrödinger cat experiment considered by mainstream science to be self-evidently wrong? Nhall0608 23:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The instrument isn't "affected" by a quantum mechanical event. It's detecting the occurrence of a quantum mechanical event. Have you ever heard of anyone performing Schrodinger's Cat experiment? Even Steven Hawking commented about it when he said "When I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my gun,". It was never meant to be a serious experiment. But it's not surprising that proponents of pseudoscientific claims would misinterpret Schrodinger's Cat experiment and use it to defend their claims. They do that constantly with QM. The amount of pseudoscience that people claim is supported by QM is remarkable. Nonsense like what the bleep do we know is a prime example. Dr. Morbius 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this statement can be true given the results of the experiment I've detailed below. That experiment clearly shows that the instrument's own "consciousness" is not sufficient to collapse the waveform; apparently, only a human watching the instrument (or having the ability to do so) can do that. --Lode Runner 02:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Solipsism

I'm surprised that solipsism, i.e. the existence of only one consciousness - me, isn't mentioned as a possible part of the interpretion. 217.227.146.242 23:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should that bother you? You do not exist! Dndn1011 01:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"`You!' said the Caterpillar contemptuously. `Who are YOU?'" Wanderer57 03:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Clearer Writing

Just because I don't understand an article does not mean it is wrong. However, being unclear does raise that suspicion. This article tries to deal with what seems to be a horrendously difficult subject, and clarity is especially important.

To quote the historian Barbara W. Tuchman: "You may say that it is a matter of semantics, but semantics make a good test. As a writer I can tell you that trouble in writing clearly invariably reflects troubled thinking, usually an incomplete grasp of the facts or of their meaning." (This quote is from Tuchman's "Generalship", in her book "Practicing History". An excerpt from Generalship is posted at http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C05%5C22%5Cstory_22-5-2006_pg3_8

This is a roundabout way of saying I think this article needs to be better written. I realize the Wikipedia reply to me is likely to be "go ahead and edit it". I won't do that because I don't understand the subject.

As an example, I suggest the section "Criteria for consciousness" could use some work. (I know this is going to sound picky. I'm just trying to explore if improving the writing would make the thing any clearer.)

For example, does the word "Here" at the beginning of the paragraph serve a purpose?

Are the bits in parentheses necessary? Is the "consciousness" of microbes and amoebas important to the discussion? If so, these points should be taken out of parentheses. If not, can they be left out altogether to simplify the thing a bit?

Can the sentence about measuring devices be split into two sentences or more? There is a lot in that one sentence.

What would it mean to say a measuring device is conscious?

How might a ruler (for example) be considered a "chain of observations"? The language used here defies belief.

And finally, a sentence with the word "also" used twice is distracting.

Thank you. Wanderer57 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to make nonsense understandable because it is, well ... nonsense. If it were explained clearly and accurately people would suddenly realize that this hypothesis is completely untestable and untenable. They overwhelm you with a mountain of garbage hoping that somewhere in there there might be something of value. That's why this article is full of references to people and institutions that lack credibility and to pseudoscience like What the bleep do we know and The Secret. Dr. Morbius 20:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If an article cannot be made "reasonably" clear, can it be deleted? Wanderer57 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well ... you can try but the proponents (I wanted to use the word crackpots but that would be insulting) of this "hypothesis" will just put it back. Dr. Morbius 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

May we go back to basics please?

The first sentence of the article was: "Consciousness causes collapse, also known as the 'spiritual interpretation'[citation needed], is the claim that observation by a conscious observer is responsible for the wavefunction collapse in quantum mechanics."

It now reads: "Consciousness causes collapse is the claim that observation by a conscious observer is responsible for the wavefunction collapse in quantum mechanics." Since the citation for the alternate name "spiritual interpretation" was still missing, I removed the name. It is not referred to anywhere else in the article, and it is not a link, so I don't think it is a big loss.

Who coined the term "consciousness causes collapse"? If this is the name it is usually referred to by, somebody must have started it. Does anyone know who?

"the wavefunction collapse" - this phrase links to another article which IMO is just as impenetrable as this one. Is there any way to give a reasonably intelligent reader, who is not up on quantum mechanics, some inkling of what the implications would be if observation by a conscious observer is responsible for the wavefunction collapse in quantum mechanics, or if it turned out that observation by a conscious observer is not responsible for the wavefunction collapse in quantum mechanics.

If it may be possible, will someone please try? If it is not possible, I propose to add a note to the article "Because of the nature of the subject, this article is probably incomprehensible to anyone without an advanced degree in theoretical physics" (or something to that effect.) I think that would be much fairer to the readers of Wikipedia. Thank you. Wanderer57 06:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. 1Z 14:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not planning to do so unilaterally. My point, here and in some other notes, is that the article has the serious problem of being nearly incomprehensible in places. I would much like to see this addressed. Wanderer57 16:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my post (below) deals with the same underlying issue. What is the evidence to support the assertion that conscious observers cause the collapse of waveforms? The experiment I detail below appears to be one such piece of evidence; however, it's possible that the experiment didn't take place as I've described (I've yet to find a detailed, written source) and it's also possible that there is another interpretation that I am missing here. --Lode Runner 12:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lode runner: I'm hoping this article can be made clearer. At this point, I think your post (below) is clearer than a lot of the article. I'm sure you will advise if you find a reputable report on the experiment. Thanks, Wanderer57 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)