〈 Berger | Dillon 〉

Understood. Does it have anything to do with consciousness affecting the result ?

No, that's a common misconception. People just tend to associate the word "observation" with consciousness, but for all intents and purposes "observation" is simply an interaction with the system. *That* is what causes wave function collapse.

Thanks. Apparently when I say this to some, they tend to say I’m wrong. I even have a fellow physics major who thinks that wave function collapse has to do with “observation” in the sense of consciousness. He’s too smug for me to correct tho.

Ask him to point to where in the equations the "consciousness variable" is that accounts for this.. when he can't ask him how he can say it's a part of the mathematical model

Great point, but I see both sides and to rule out consciousness playing a role definitevely would be claiming you've resolved the many conflicting but valid interpretations of quantum mechanics. Ie. The Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation posits a need for consciousness.

Also there is and probably never will be a "consciousness" variable despite the fact that we experience it permanently. It's likely a complex emergent phenomena arising from the actions of trillions of more simple information processing units and the particles theyre made of.

The term emergence is a cop out. Temperature comes from jostling around of molecules. We have models for this and simulations that take us from the microscopic to macroscopic. Therefore just because it’s emergent doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be able to describe that emergence.

And no ruling out consciousness does not resolve many conflicting interpretations. Accounting for the finite speed of light and posing the question properly resolves the “Wigner’s Friend” paradox, which is the *only* interpretation that uses consciousness , not one of “many”.