Here I am again, popping out of the woodwork to address my favorite pet-peeve: whether the results of quantum physics show that consciousness is fundamental (or, in fact, whether they have anything to do with consciousness at all).
My position is still that they don’t, but lately I’ve been actively cultivating a more gentle approach to claims that I would otherwise reject outright; so, rather than jumping out of a trash can and saying “No! You’re wrong!”, I would rather ask, in good faith and a relatively open mind: How does the double-slit experiment prove that consciousness is what causes the observer effect?
I’d love to hear from any of you about this, but I also figured I’d get into the spirit of things and ask Bard about it, too. I have to say that even though these new LLMs are incredibly impressive on a technical level, I’ve generally found their conservation to be fairly unimpressive and even tedious at times. Here’s my conservation with Bard on this topic, edited for brevity:
Me: Please give me a steel-man argument for why the double-slit experiment proves that consciousness is involved in quantum physics
Bard: Steel-man Argument for Double-Slit Experiment and Consciousness
While there's no consensus on the link between the double-slit experiment and consciousness, here's a strong case for their possible connection:
1. The Observer Problem:
- The double-slit experiment shows particles exhibit wave-like interference patterns when not observed, then particle-like behavior when detected. This raises the crucial "observer problem": what collapses the wavefunction, causing the shift from probabilistic wave to definite particle?
- Traditional interpretations (Copenhagen) suggest the act of observation itself triggers the collapse. Proponents argue this implies consciousness, the subjective experience of observing, plays a fundamental role in shaping reality at the quantum level.
[blah blah blah]
Me: Please expand on your case for the connection between consciousness and the "observer problem"
Bard: Expanding on the connection between consciousness and the observer problem in the double-slit experiment can delve into several specific points:
[blah blah blah]
2. The Subjective Nature of Observation:
- The measurement in the double-slit experiment seems to depend on the observer's intent and expectation. Different measuring devices with the same purpose could give differing results depending on their design.
- This suggests the "observer" might not be just a physical entity but also involves a subjective element, potentially aligning with the qualitative nature of consciousness.
[blah blah blah]
Me: Please give an argument as to why the choice of the type of measurement is not enough to explain the "observer effect", and why consciousness needs to be invoked to explain it
Bard: 1. Non-locality and the Instantaneous Collapse:
- The choice of measurement determines the outcome of the experiment (particle vs. wave) regardless of the specific type of instrument used. This implies a non-local interaction, where the choice instantaneously affects the particle across potentially vast distances.
- The nature of this non-locality is difficult to explain within the purely physical framework of the choice of measurement. Some argue it aligns with the non-local nature of consciousness, which binds disparate thoughts and sensations into a unified experience.
[blah blah blah]
Me: How exactly does the independence from the choice of the type of instrument imply non-local interaction?
Bard: You're right, my previous statement was overly simplified and needs clarification. The independence from the choice of the type of instrument in the double-slit experiment doesn't directly imply non-local interaction for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. It is, however, a factor that raises questions about the nature of the "observer effect" and the role of the observer in collapsing the wavefunction.
Here's a more nuanced explanation:
Traditional Interpretations:
- Under the Copenhagen interpretation, the collapse of the wavefunction is linked to the act of observation, which includes choosing the type of measurement. However, the specific instrument used is considered irrelevant, as long as it interacts with the particle in a way that allows for extracting information about its state (e.g., position or momentum). [emphasis mine]
- In this view, the independence from the instrument doesn't directly imply non-locality. The non-locality comes from the assumed instantaneous collapse of the wavefunction across any distance, regardless of the instrument's location.
Alternative Interpretations:
- Decoherence-based interpretations offer different perspectives. They argue that the wavefunction decoheres due to interactions with the environment, not necessarily requiring a conscious observer. The environment "chooses" which path the particle takes by interacting with it in different ways depending on the chosen measurement.
- In these interpretations, the independence from the instrument is linked to the specific interaction with the environment, not necessarily implying non-locality.
... So like I said, I’m not especially impressed with the content of the conversation so far. Bard’s answers have been fairly sloppy, and I still haven’t heard a real steel-man argument as to why the double-slit experiment proves that consciousness is fundamental; or, to state it in the more precise manner that this "conservation" forced me to contrive, I still haven't heard an argument as to why it has to be consciousness, rather than merely the choice of the type of measurement, that determines the behavior we see in the double-slit experiment.
I don't harp on this issue just to be difficult. I do it because over time, it's become more and more important to me to answer the question of whether the "supernatural" exists at all, or if what we think of as "supernatural" can be claimed by the naturalists and explained away as purely physical phenomena, either using physics we've already discovered (like... QuANTuM PHysICS!!) or some completely new, as-yet undiscovered physics.
![[[p]]]( "Wink [[p]]")
