Trying to Make Sense of the Observer in Quantumn Mechanics

[Oppositionless]

When I first learned about the double slit experiment, I was also getting into spirituality. So to me it made perfect sense that the observer in quantumn mechanics was consciousness. In fact, there is an interpretation of QM called the Von Neumann Wigner interpretation where this is the case. However , this is not popular. Most physicists believe that any classical system can be an observer. They say that the measuring device used in the double slit experiment can be an observer.

However I read something from Bernardo Kastrup in his book, Science Ideated, where he stated that the measuring device is not the observer, because until a conscious agent reads the results of the experiment, both the measuring device and the quantumn particle are in a superposition . But I do not think I really understand what that means. I think he means that the result of the experiment is not known and could be affected by conscious observation .

I also wonder how any classical system could be considered an observer, because I can't imagine that if that were the case, we would ever be able to observe quantum effects to begin with. After all, the room itself in which the experiments are performed is itself a classical system.

As you can tell, I do not have a background in physics. I've been reading independently on this topic for years and don't believe I am any closer to an answer than when I started. if someone with training in physics would like to help, that would be appreciated. 

Edited October 7 by Oppositionless
Said "however" too many times

[mmKay]

 

Edited October 7 by mmKay

[Ero]

You are hitting on some of the deepest questions in contemporary physics. Do be absolutely blunt, no one has yet figured it out. This is Penrose's critique of QM and why he states it as an incomplete and a "not even quite correct theory" - because it cannot define what it means to be an observer and what it means to measure something. So what follows is moreso my ontological/philosophical deduction rather than a technical answer (which does not yet exist):

Separation of observer and observed is arbitrary/non-existent. This is a fundamental assumption in modern science and it is one that physicists refuse to let go of, which is why they can't reconcile this paradox. The process of 'measurement collapse' I believe is more deeply tied with the concept of minimizing surprise/maximizing 'entropy' - what was previously a superposition of possibilities crystalizes once we sample the world through the Active Inference principle and gain a bit of information. This is what defines the 'direction of time' in all non-deterministic systems. 

[Ero]

Btw, forgot to mention, but von Neumann was way ahead of his time. In many technical aspects he is a stage two thinker. I am much more closely aligned with his interpretation that Consciousness is fundamental, than I am with the Copenhagen interpretation. The only step von Neumann was missing was that everything is in fact consciousness. 

[Leo Gura]

On 10/7/2024 at 9:12 AM, Oppositionless said:

Most physicists believe that any classical system can be an observer. They say that the measuring device used in the double slit experiment can be an observer.

It's a moot point because EVERYTHING is consciousness.

So when a mechanical probe measures something, ultimately is has to route through your consciousness, since your ARE reality. But also, what people miss is that the mechanical probe itself is consciousness.

But it is incorrect to say that a probe needs to be conscious or sentient.

Edited October 8 by Leo Gura

[Hojo]

The observer defines what's happening.

If the observer knows this the observer should be able to use its imagination to pretend something into existence as what's the observer is observing is reality.

This requires the observer to surrender all it knows about observing. If the observer can somehow control what it is observing it should be able to schrodingers cat anything. How am I observing things should be the main q.

Example is Jesus turning a tub of water into wine/tantra

Edited October 8 by Hojo

[Oppositionless]

19 hours ago, Ero said:

 

Separation of observer and observed is arbitrary/non-existent. This is a fundamental assumption in modern science and it is one that physicists refuse to let go of, which is why they can't reconcile this paradox. The process of 'measurement collapse' I believe is more deeply tied with the concept of minimizing surprise/maximizing 'entropy' - what was previously a superposition of possibilities crystalizes once we sample the world through the Active Inference principle and gain a bit of information. This is what defines the 'direction of time' in all non-deterministic systems. 

That actually sounds a lot like QBism! There's a theory of everything episode that talks about it.

[LoseYourvelf]

I wish there was a game you could mount up and ride wooly mammoths (don't say world of warcraft -.-)

[Keryo Koffa]

Imagine a particular observer subconsciously believes in the consistency and possibility of measurement.

Any possible observation could retrocausally change the universe to always have been perfectly synchronized.

The observation itself would expand fractally and exponentially to cover all magnitudes of existence.

Edited October 8 by Keryo Koffa

[Ero]

@Oppositionless You are very in-tune. That's impressive. QBism does indeed use a Bayesian interpretation, however, I would argue it still fails to address the measurement/observer problem and fundamentally believes in the distinction between the two. In that sense, while it proposes what I believe to be an epistemic description in the right direction, it views quantum mechanics as a tool for organizing agents’ expectations and as such offers limited explanatory power when it comes to the nature of physical phenomena in an ontological sense. It gives you no description/ definition of what 'quantum entities' are and why does QM work the way it does. It still does nothing to address the fundamental nature of consciousness. 

Edited October 8 by Ero

[Ero]

Two examples if you are interested in going deeper are Carlo Rovelli's Relational QM (you probably would have heard it, having listened to Kastrup) and Chris Fields's Free Energy QM Interpretation. In general, I believe that all Quantum Information-based interpretations are a step in the right direction by "de-materializing" the underlying ontology. It is much easier to step from information to consciousness as an ontology then it is from objective materialism. 

One thing you should keep in mind is that even if a theory offers interesting or maybe even correct interpretations, that doesn't guarantee at all its technical correctness. The devil's in the details and that is especially true in science.

In case you are also interested in the technical side of things, my advice would be for you to study the Functional Analysis/ Operator Theory formalism and its Categorical lifting. Consider reading von Neumann, John Baez and Alain Connes.

My current intuition is to treat entropy as a topological operad and quantum systems as observers themselves (i.e you no longer have a separation between observer and observed).

Edited October 8 by Ero