Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2005.13317

Quantum Mechanics May Need Consciousness

Andrew Knight

Published May 26, 2020• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The assertion by Yu and Nikolic that the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment of Kim et al. empirically falsifies the consciousness-causes-collapse hypothesis of quantum mechanics is based on the unfounded and false assumption that the failure of a quantum wave function to collapse implies the appearance of a visible interference pattern.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2005.13317

Related papers

Comment on the paper Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness by Yu and Nikolic (2011)

Catherine M Reason

This is a brief comment on the paper "Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness" by Shan Yu and Danko Nikolic [1]. Yu and Nikolic argue that the "consciousness causes collapse hypothesis" interpretation of quantum mechanics, or CCCH, can be falsified by a particular experimental setup. This claim is incorrect and the cause of the error appears to be a confusion over where and when a collapse can be assumed to occur.

arXiv:1707.01346•Jul 5, 2017•0 citations

Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)

Yu, Shan, Nikolić, Danko

It has been suggested that consciousness plays an important role in quantum mechanics as it is necessary for the collapse of wave function during the measurement. Furthermore, this idea has spawned a symmetrical proposal: a possibility that quantum mechanics explains the emergence of consciousness in the brain. Here we formulated several predictions that follow from this hypothetical relationship and that can be empirically tested. Some of the experimental results that are already available suggest falsification of the first hypothesis. Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable. We discuss the constraints implied by the existing evidence on the role that the human observer may play for quantum mechanics and the role that quantum mechanics may play in the observer's consciousness.

arXiv:1009.2404•Sep 13, 2010•1 citation

Can we Rule out the Need for Consciousness in Quantum Mechanics

J. Acácio de Barros, Gary Oas

In this paper we examine some proposals to disprove the hypothesis that the interaction between mind and matter causes the collapse of the wave function, showing that such proposals are fundamentally flawed. We then describe a general experimental setup retaining the key features of the ones examined, and show that even a more general case is inadequate to disprove the mind-matter collapse hypothesis. Finally, we use our setup provided to argue that, under some reasonable assumptions about consciousness, such hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

•Sep 2, 2016•0 citations

Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser in a Space-time Description

Sergey P. Suprun, Anatoly P. Suprun, Victor F. Petrenko

Analysis of the quantum physics experiments relying on the object-based concepts in space-time terms leads to irresolvable paradoxes. These paradoxes can be resolved by accepting that the wave function collapse, similar to time, matches the object-based model in consciousness that describes the result of observation and, moreover, the understanding of this means that the fact is fixed in the mental map.

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBLISHERS eBooks•Oct 6, 2022•0 citations

Quantum measurements are physical processes. Comment on "Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments," by Dean Radin et al. [Phys. Essays 25, 157 (2012)].

Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi

The validity of the assertion that some recent double-slit interference experiments, conducted by Radin et al., would have tested the possible role of the experimenter's mind in the collapse of the quantum wave function, is questioned. It is emphasized that quantum mechanics doesn't need any psychophysical ingredient to explain the measurement processes, and therefore parapsychologists shouldn't resort to the latter to support the possibility of psychokinesis, but search for more convincing explanations.

arXiv:1207.0804•Physics Essays•Mar 1, 2013•5 citations

Delayed choice experiments and causality in quantum mechanics

Dominik Šafránek

Although it may seem The Delayed Choice experiments contradict causality and one could construct an experiment which could possibly affect the past, using Many World interpretation we prove it is not possible. We also find a mathematical background to Which-path information and show why its obtainability prevents system from interfering. We find a system which exhibit both interference and correlation and show why one-particle interference and correlations are complementary. Better visible interference pattern leads to worse correlations and vice versa. Then, using knowledge gained from Quantum Eraser and Delayed Choice experiments we prove there is not an objective reality in a sense of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. Furthermore, we discuss the difference between ``outer'' (non-interacting) and ``inner'' (interacting) observer. We find the mathematical relationship between the ``universal'' wave function used by ``outer'' observer and processes the ``inner'' observer sees, which is our small contribution to the measurement problem.

arXiv:1907.05990•Jul 13, 2019•0 citations
The assertion by Yu and Nikolic that the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment of Kim et al. empirically falsifies the consciousness-causes-collapse hypothesis of quantum mechanics is based on the unfounded and false assumption that the failure of a quantum wave function to collapse implies the appearance of a visible interference pattern.
It has been suggested that consciousness plays an important role in quantum mechanics as it is necessary for the collapse of wave function during the measurement. Furthermore, this idea has spawned a symmetrical proposal: a possibility that quantum mechanics explains the emergence of consciousness in the brain. Here we formulated several predictions that follow from this hypothetical relationship and that can be empirically tested. Some of the experimental results that are already available suggest falsification of the first hypothesis. Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable. We discuss the constraints implied by the existing evidence on the role that the human observer may play for quantum mechanics and the role that quantum mechanics may play in the observer's consciousness.
In this paper we examine some proposals to disprove the hypothesis that the interaction between mind and matter causes the collapse of the wave function, showing that such proposals are fundamentally flawed. We then describe a general experimental setup retaining the key features of the ones examined, and show that even a more general case is inadequate to disprove the mind-matter collapse hypothesis. Finally, we use our setup provided to argue that, under some reasonable assumptions about consciousness, such hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
The validity of the assertion that some recent double-slit interference experiments, conducted by Radin et al., would have tested the possible role of the experimenter's mind in the collapse of the quantum wave function, is questioned. It is emphasized that quantum mechanics doesn't need any psychophysical ingredient to explain the measurement processes, and therefore parapsychologists shouldn't resort to the latter to support the possibility of psychokinesis, but search for more convincing explanations.
Although it may seem The Delayed Choice experiments contradict causality and one could construct an experiment which could possibly affect the past, using Many World interpretation we prove it is not possible. We also find a mathematical background to Which-path information and show why its obtainability prevents system from interfering. We find a system which exhibit both interference and correlation and show why one-particle interference and correlations are complementary. Better visible interference pattern leads to worse correlations and vice versa. Then, using knowledge gained from Quantum Eraser and Delayed Choice experiments we prove there is not an objective reality in a sense of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. Furthermore, we discuss the difference between ``outer'' (non-interacting) and ``inner'' (interacting) observer. We find the mathematical relationship between the ``universal'' wave function used by ``outer'' observer and processes the ``inner'' observer sees, which is our small contribution to the measurement problem.