Why are so many physicists loathe to admit that consciousness plays a part in quantum mechanics...

>inb4 godidit

It's all about wave function.. if you know about quantum physics you'll understand me.

>WE HUMANS ARE IMPORTANT AND MAKE WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE WITH OUR MINDS REEEEEEEE

No you are not, stop.

You guys forget that consciousness seems to depend on a certain kind of complexity or brain functioning where quantum mechanics plays no part.

Tbh you use observer loosely. Why does it have to be conscious. Lets gt to the heart of it.

The wavefunction is just an observer's subjective estimate, so gaining information = 'collapse' by definition.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ra1Ax2dBpH4

OP BTFOd

>quantum phenomena plays no role in the brain's functioning
>all modern microscopic physics is based on quantum theory

really dude

>Why are so many physicists loathe to admit that consciousness plays a part in quantum mechanics?
The original reason physicists had serious problems with this notion is that consciousness is a high-level phenomenon, which is BUILT out of quantum physics (a low-level phenomenon), and which can therefore not play a fundamental role in it. You can't both have quantum physics be made of consciousness and consciousness me made of quantum physics. And of course, more basally, quantum physics has been doing its thing since well before any conscious living things were around.

The reason modern physicists have problems with the notion is that it is now well understood how consciousness has nothing to do with it. It appeared to back in the 30s, yes, but things have progressed since then.

It plays as much a part as it does in any macroscopic phenomena.

Aka. Not thread worthy. No reason to think quantim mechanics have a special relationship with consciousness

If you assume that the brains function is dictated by classical physics and chemistry I don't see any reason why quantum mechanics wouldn't play a part. It seems to be making an unwarranted delineation. Certainly we've seen quantum mechanics function in molecules much, much bigger than what is passed between synapses, some big enough to see with the naked eye. If quantum mechanics are a fundamental part of how our reality functions why would they not play a part in the brain? Just because you think it's too weird?

ITT: Brainlets arguing over who woke up today first.

I was born in 1984 B.C.

>really dude
Well two answers:
1) No, your attempt at a description of how things are is wrong and
2) Yes, neuronal firing isn't impacted by quantum scale phenomena
nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute
>The most damning critique has come from Max Tegmark, a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who calculated that any quantum effects within microtubules would break down after 100 quadrillionths of a second. “For my thoughts to correspond to a quantum computation, they’d need to finish before decoherence kicked in, so I’d need to be able to think fast enough to have 10,000,000,000,000 thoughts each second,” Tegmark writes in his 2014 book Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. “Perhaps Roger Penrose can think that fast, but I sure can’t.”
Also you're an idiot for acting like "quantum consciousness" is somehow the obvious answer that everyone agrees on. It's the complete opposite, most everyone agrees "quantum consciousness" is a trash theory and the only reason it gets any consideration at all is because Roger Penrose is a recognized genius in a completely different field of study. And before you go "well he's a genius then, why do you think you know better than he does?" you might want to keep in mind the many examples of really clever people who fall for insane ideas later in life.
Gödel was a genius too for example but he literally starved himself to death because he was a paranoid schizophrenic who thought everyone was trying to poison him through his food and that somehow by not eating any food that would solve his problem.
Or take Linus Pauling, a chemistry Nobel Prize winner who went on to insist massive amounts of vitamin C would cure cancer.
Or Kary Mullis: Came up with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and is also outspoken about how AIDS is a government conspiracy and alien abductions are real.
Or John Nash, etc.

>so many physicists
[citation needed]

Tegmark is wrong. Not only do we know for a fact that some organisms use quantum mechanics in various ways, we know that decoherence can take many times longer in those systems than outside them

newscientist.com/article/mg20927963.000-quantum-states-last-longer-in-birds-eyes/

>The longest-lived electrons in an artificial quantum system – a cage of carbon atoms with a nitrogen atom at its centre – survived for just 80 microseconds at comparable temperatures, the team points out. “Nature has, for whatever reason, been able to protect quantum coherence better than we can do with molecules that have been specially designed,” says team member Simon Benjamin of the Centre for Quantum Technologies in Singapore.

Stop posting that garbage. It's outdated and incorrect.

That's a bird eye, try posting evidence this happens with neuronal firing.

There is energy within thought, if we gather enough people together we will reach critical thought mass and surpass the limit of questions. THE SKY WILL TEAR.

If quantum states can influence how birds navigate what objection could there be to the possibility that it also influences cognitive function?

>Think about quantum computer
>It breaks
Fug :DDD

The role consciousness plays in science is not yet known.

The objection where a bird eye isn't a brain you retard. Quantum consciousness is not a mainstream idea, stop trying to pretend it is.

Also consider the fact what the bird eye does in that context has nothing to do with cognition and is better likened to a compass, so congratulations, you've made a great argument for quantum scale phenomena being mindless physical interactions and not a mechanism for producing intelligent behavior.

NOBODY EXCEPT POPSCI FAGGOTS OUTSIDE OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY TAKES THE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION SERIOUSLY ANYMORE FUCK OFF.

marxist.com/quantum-mechanics-copenhagen130705.htm

What is this shit

>tfw no quantum enema

Short answer: nobody knows for sure what consciousness actually is and everyone that says otherwise is a liar.

That has nothing to do with Marxism at all, except for perhaps a skewed view on the actions of russia and germany in the previous century. All in all it's a fairly thorough walk through the history of quantum mechanics.

>Why are so many physicists loathe to admit that consciousness plays a part in quantum mechanics?
Why do they say that the wavefunction has to go to zero at infinity but not that it also has to go to zero at their own location?

I think the bigger question is why would the universe function in such a way that it seemingly hides how it functions at the most basic level, to the point of violating causality and going backwards in time to fabricate a history when information is obtained?

The more interesting one is why random number generators generate different numbers depending on if an observer is thinking about the randomly generated number. There was an interesting MIT study on that.

>That has nothing to do with Marxism at all
Why it should? It's just a good entry level article about problem

>the most basic level
Newton's apple falling on his head is the most basic level. What happens when particle physicists get together to build an electrical contraption is about as non-basic as physics gets

jesus christ you equate obtaining information with consciousness, youre not going to make it user

New age spiritualist bullshit if you ask me.

This is true

simma down Cadet Capslock

>The collapse only occurs if it provides information that a conscious observer could use
And how did "they" test something with information that an observer cannot use?

Anyway you've been memed on by the "quantum eraser" clique.
Take a look at this, this exactly the fallacy you've fallen prey to: jamesowenweatherall.com/SCPPRG/EllermanDavid2012Man_QuantumEraser2.pdf

>jesus christ you equate obtaining information with consciousness, youre not going to make it user
Yeah, that's effectively David Chalmers levels of retardation there.
consc.net/notes/lloyd-comments.html

>jamesowenweatherall.com/SCPPRG/EllermanDavid2012Man_QuantumEraser2.pdf
Can you dumb that down a shade?

Essentially, when you do a two electrons quantum eraser experiment, there are two patterns: the "fringe pattern" and its exact complementary "anti fringe pattern".
The two added together just give you the regular non-interference pattern, and this is what you measure.

Only after the fact do you connect the dots, using the coincidence counter, and thus selecting the fringe and anti-fringe patterns from the uniform, non-interference pattern.

So really all you've been doing is selecting patterns, after the fact. There is no implication of retrocausality, nor that "erasing information" somehow creates interference patterns.

Why did anyone bother doing that experiment in the first place?

Jesus christ. Are there really people that stupid?

I agree with OP, why would erasing the data of the detector afterwards revert the data if the detector was the thing that was changing the particle? How does the thing that maps the particle know whether the data was deleted or not? You have to show it to a doggo and then delete it and see what happens.

Have you actually understood why the uncertainty principle says what it says?

Niqqa, I haven't even read the uncertainty principle, but an old man on youtube said consciousness collapses quantum entanglements so....

People who work in interpretation of quantum mechanics are desperate for new results.
They'll go as far as to show you some interference patterns and claim it proves the Bohm interpretation is correct, when any interpretation would have made the same prediction.

>Mocking Pauling
Linus Pauling was the greatest scientist in the past 100 years.
>t. Chemist

1. Because there's no evidence towards that, except for some pseudoscientists who completely misunderstand the concept of a wave function.
2. It would be unscientific to do so. Unless you obtain irrefutable proofs towards what you're defending, there's no point in just giving up and saying "Yup. It's totally consciousness, guys."

It's on a website "marxist.com" with the title "In Defence of Marxism".

>citing a book by a UC Santa Cruz professor who is just trying to get stoner students into his class

>le vitamin c man
>greatest scientist in the last 100 years
go back to your flat earth general

You can't obtain information without consciousness retard. Information is knowledge obtained from raw data. A rock can't have knowledge. Hence if the system collapses when INFORMATION is obtained is necessarily means there must be a CONSCIOUS observer because there is no such thing as information without consciousness.

You're dumb.

He's wrong. We already know local-realism cannot be true because we have experimental data that shows it. If local realism is false then retro causality must be occurring.

>You can't obtain information without consciousness retard.
Objectively wrong. Information in the context of quantum mechanics has a rigorous definition.
For information I of system S with N orthogonal quantum states:
I(S) = log(N)
Consciousness is not a part of that equation. Information in this context is simply a function of the number of orthogonal quantum states of a physical system.

We've already gone over this. The equations that govern quantum mechanics only have predictive power, not explanatory power. What the variables in the equasions are defined as are abstractions and might not even exist within reality. Empirical evidence shows that gaining information on the state of a particle is what collapses the probabilities of where it might be into where it actually is.

Appealing to the math is pointless because you can predict the orbit of the moon using Newtonian mechanics even when we know there is no such thing as "gravitational force". Predictive mathematical equations need not have any basis in reality, they're abstractions of physical phenomena nothing more.

ITT: "No! I'm Spartacus!" ~ad nauseum.

Why do quantum physicists or those that arge about it forget they needed an English dictionary to even be able to agree on reading/writing non-destructively?

Okay, I will make this simpler for brainlets.

Can you quantumly erase all dictionaries simultaneously, without reading all of them first?

Then nothing has explanatory power... what are you looking for exactly?? I dont see any other way of looking at reality.

I just want to add that this has been an issue in Quantum Physics since the field was discovered. Niels Bohr famously said:

>There is no quantum world. There is only abstract quantum description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.

And since then we've used the Copenhagen Interpretation which is essentially a side step and states we have no freaking idea what is actually going on at sub atomic scales, but it doesn't matter because all that is relevant is how the microscopic interacts with our macroscopic equipment. Hence as long as we can predict what experimental results will be there is no issue with not knowing the reality of how particles actually operate. Modelling them as waves of probability is sufficient, even if they clearly do not exist physically as waves of probability in reality.

>hen nothing has explanatory power
Lots of things do, you just need to decouple the math from the explanation. Newtonian mechanics and General Relativity can both predict the orbits of the planets and thus both have predictive power but they vary in their actual explanation of the phenomena that is occuring. When you throw a ball Newtonian mechanics states that the ball curves back to Earth because the Earth exerts a force on it. General Relativity states the ball falls because it's following the curved spacetime caused by the Earths mass.

You can model a falling ball with either model and get a 100% correct result, but only one explanation of what is actually occurring in reality is correct (or perhaps more accurately, complete, since GR is an extension of Newtonian Mechanics and not really a replacement)

My question really is. Define to me what explanatory power is and why its different from predictive power coz im not sure youve thought it through.

I dont see how one is better than another when how we explain or perceive the world depends on what instruments we use. E.g. eyes, telescopes, CERN shit. Its all relative. I dont see how you can isolate one way of viewing the world that shows one true reality that other techniques must conform. Our own pov is intuitive but alot of the time shitty. Other views are better at different scales. I dont know what you mean by reality correctly. Evey way of describing reality is partly arbitrary vie mathbor other means and theres many ways to get to the same result.

What du mean by explanatory as opposed to predictive power. You sound mislead.

Predictive power is the ability to predict the results of experimentation using a particular model.

Explanatory power is the ability to explain experimental results in terms of physical phenomena that occur in reality.

Quantum mechanics is a field with models immense predictive power but almost no explanatory power. When we want explanations of what is actually occurring we use "interpretations" but those interpretations are completely removed from the actual math that is used to make predictions.

But your view is inconsistent because we only know of the physical phenomena of reality through experimentation observation etc. I dont think there is, in a bayesian sense, a prior we can use that represents actual reality. We get it all through experiments and it depends how we measure it. So what kind of physical reality are you trying to reconcile it witb. The intuitive one we see with our eyes? No.

Imagine I had a black box filled with marbles and there were say 10,000 different colors with a spout that will dispense one marble when I turn a knob. Now I have created an abstract mathematical model that allows me with 100% certainty to predict what color will come out of the box when the knob is turned next. We have no idea why the math seems to be able to predict this behavior and we have no idea what is actually happening inside the box. This situation is analogous to our current understanding of quantum mechanics. We have wildly successful models that have predicted results down to the one in a trillionth level of precision. We also have no idea what is physically occurring in reality to create these results. We only know that the math can predict the marble, not why the marbles come out in that way nor how the marbles are arranged in the box.

We only have predictive power. We have no way of explaining what is happening, we can only say that the model can allow us to know with 100% certainty what marble will come out next but says absolutely nothing about WHY that marble will come out next.

Remember our own perceptions of what happens is always interpretive whether thats from using scientific instruments or our own arbitrary senses. I dont see what mind of reality ýoure trying to corroberate with. All explanations are simply predictions. I say to you the main difference is explanations for you is predictions that can be framed in things familiar to you... but thats not necessarily reality.

>All explanations are simply predictions
This simply isn't true. I know how clouds are formed even with no ability to predict when they will form. Knowledge of why phenomena occur is just as important as being able to predict when they will occur, or in what way they will occur.

Explanatory power is just as important if not more so than predictive power, saying otherwise is waving a white flag and saying "Don't try to understand it all we have to do is know it works"

But our understanding of what occurs in the box are based on theoretical intuitive views. They arent different from quantum mechanics. Youre just biased in using it. Explanatory power the way you say it is biased. The things in the black box are explained in a similar way to outside the box. If you really want you can go deep enough. Look at how bertrand tried to prove 1+1=2. Youre biased to the arbitrary. Explanatory is nothing but prediction in relation to your intuitive experience. Doesnt mean shit though. Biased. U can always ask more questions. Judt how easily do you accept the answer.

>muh causality

But theres no clear line betweeb explanations and predictions thats what im saying. Newtons laws are predictions not explanations. Explanations are i think cases of macrophenomena. Even your explantions of clouds rely on crude words. If put in math formula u wd get the same problem. Your words and perception is only one lense and you neglect. You make assumptions coz its not really an explanation till you get to the microscopic level otherwise i cd ask many questions about why does heat make air rise etc. Intuitive. We accept it but end of the day that boils down to some arbitrary prediction some formila based on an observation. So what youre saying isnt really explanation. Its the same as any predictive content. Just layered up to seem intuitive.

>But theres no clear line betweeb explanations and predictions thats what im saying
There is. If you hold up cards to me and I correctly predict every single one, what is your explanation for this phenomena? Me being able to predict your cards is completely separate from the issue of how I'm predicting them.

You're confusing being able to predict results with knowing the mechanism of action. They're two separate things. Biologists know evolution is a powerful explanatory theory for how life spread into so many species. They'd also admit they can't predict very well how species will evolve into the future. Evolution is a good explanatory theory but has little predictive power.

And even if you say "because the particles have more energy" thats not an explanation. Its an observation of how particles behave and energy ultimately is an abstraction from it. But do we have a deeper "explanation" of what energy is ir why it happens? No. We are just describing things. Prediction is explanation.

But my point is that knowing the mechanisms is just prediction at a smaller scale. You just get into regression.

That evolution example is just due to problems of scale. Difficulty in applying to small scales. You shouldnt be so binary too. Prediction is the output and explanation is the prediction. Again.these explanations are based on crude concepts which thrmselves have to be explained which boils down to arbitrariness. Physics is based on many unexplained assumptions/observation a better word, and we use that as a basis to create explanations. All explanations boil down to predictions we dont understand but get from observation. You dont see that? All explanations require priors and we cant infinitely regress.

>Prediction is explanation.
So again, if you held up cards and I was able to predict each one you'd say that the fact I can predict them is the explanation of how I predict them? I'm sorry you're incorrect. Being able to predict results and knowing the mechanism of action by which those results are created are separate and both important. If I was able to predict cards and you just threw your hands up in the air and said "Well he predicts every card no need to look into this any further because the prediction is the explanation" you'd be a very bad scientist. Perhaps I had a person looking at the cards and sending me radio infomation, or a hidden camera, or I'm psychic but in any case you still need to dig deeper and find the mechanism behind my predictive abilities and not just retired from sheer laziness and intellectual sloth

My point is that explanations are just what satisfies our intuitions bout reality or schemas about it which themselves are based on inexplicable phenomena we just accept.

Look man. If we keep asking why something happens and regress it dont you get to a poiny where you cant answer it. And the beginning of any explanation is unexplained assumptions about reality which may be explicable mathematically? Can you not see that?

Do we know why electrons and protons are negatively/positively charged?

Im telling you we can make expanations from low level predictions

Another point. Do you need to know about physica to undersrtand a magic trick? NO. Then your working off predictions not explanations even ythough you say you undersrand it. But obviously since you dont know physics or bio, youre using assumptions about reality which you dont care to explain. Yes explanation is an arbitrary concept. The lowest level explanation of reality will always be a prediction not an explanation.

>youre using assumptions about reality
That it can be rationally explained? That's a core tenet of science...

No im saying that every explanation relies on assumptions which may or may not be explainable. A good example can be showing a guy throwing a ball and askinf the person where it will land. Most people might be able to predict where but not explain why. But thats an assumption. Its accepted. And science is the same further you go down. Like the heat example. You can go to molecular level things moving but when you get to energy
Or why they move, what is it. Its just an observation. An assumption. Explanation is limited by priors. Do you understand me now?

I understand you but you're also wrong. You don't have a very good grasp of what you're talking about. Explanations are not assumptions. If I throw you a ball it's because my arm imparted energy to the ball sufficient to allow it to move through the air to the destination. This is not assumption, it's fact and also an explanation of how the ball gets from point A to point B.

You do not understand what explanation is or why science relies on explanation to understand the reality we live in. It's fairly important so I highly recommend you do some reading if you're looking into going into any of the sciences.

Why am i wrong or have no grasp. Im not saying explanations are assumptions. Im saying they require assumptions. People accept explanations in everyday life without asking. People dont question why if they throw a ball it has a certain trajectory. Scientific people dont question why electrons and protons have charges. Dude i know alot about science. If u want to explain more ur definition thrn go ahead but i guarantee its based on assumptions whih are predictions. And i dont mean they arent valid. I just mean theyre predictions.

Are not explanations underlyed by assumptions? At a microscopic level or even at newtons laws we observe that things happen and describe it mathematically but is there a why?

Lol this nigga wont reply. Knows hes a wrong bitch

>still falling for the quantum consciousness meme

Lol nigga bitch you got beat.

Yeah how long do i have to embarrass this bitch.