I may be completely wrong about this, but as I understand it, quantum physics, at least as illustrated by Schrödinger's Cat, suggests, if it does not actually posit, that being is, as it were, not settled unless it is observed. If this be so, is not the implication that, in some sense, to some degree, consciousness is, if not prior to being, certainly necessary for being?
See also this: Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?
Post bumped.
Quantum mechanics says that, in order for a system to behave classically (i.e. conform to our macroscopic intuition of how things should behave) it needs to be "measured" (or "observed"). However, "observation" in this context is a term of the art and does not imply consciousness; it loosely means something like "interaction with a large object".
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Doru
Hi Doru,
ReplyDeleteThanks for explaining that. I am not remotely as well informed. But I still wonder how that squares with, say, this remark by Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness." Also, Planck's fellow Nobelist Eugene Wigner said that "it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum physics in a full consistent way without reference to consciousness." So I am still wondering.
I think of consciousness as the fifth dimension, as mysterious a concept as time being the fourth. If the "aswer" to Zeno's paradox is duration, then the answer to quantum paradoxes is consciousness. And all are equally intertwined. I say this not being a scientist, just a seeker.
ReplyDeleteI would like to make two comments on Planck's and Wigner's remarks: First, they predate the "measurement as decoherence" interpretation, which was put forward in the 70s and 80s. Second, and probably more importantly, they are made outside of quantum mechanics (QM), insofar they are not stated in its mathematical language (and I don't know of a way to account for consciousness in QM). Thus, inside QM one cannot invoke (and does not need) consciousness to explain the result of a measurement. Of course, one can still refer to it to understand QM in a wider philosophical framework, if only in the obvious sense that QM is a human creation.
ReplyDelete