The experimental results that falsify predictions i) and ii) already exist. Firstly, in experiments similar to that proposed here (e.g., [11, 20, 33]), it was shown that if “which-path” information was in principle obtainable, then even though no actual attempt was made to extract this information (i.e., to measure it), no interference pattern was found. For example, in the experiment carried out by Zou et al. [33], the interference pattern formed by the signal photons could only be observed when the paths of idler photons were aligned, i.e., the “which-path” information was destroyed. If the idlers were misaligned to allow the source of the signal photons to become distinguishable, the interference pattern disappeared. Interestingly, under such conditions, it is not important whether a detector is actually in place ready to make the measurement of “which-path” or not. As long as such measurement could be made, i.e., the photon path is in principle identifiable, the interference is wiped out [33]. Thus, the first prediction of consciousness hypothesis is false.
Secondly, in another set of experiments, “which-path” information was measured but was not recorded by a macroscopic device and, therefore, was not accessible to a conscious observer. Under such conditions, also no interference pattern was found. For example, in the experiments reported by Eichmann et al. [34] and D¨urr et al. [35], the “which-path” information was only stored in the state of a single atom. Results demonstrated unambiguously that even if such microscopically stored information was not actually read out, the mere fact that it could be read out ensured the absence of the interference pattern. Therefore, the existing evidence indicates that the second prediction is also false. (note: emphasis added)