Um, where is the math behind mind collapsing wave functions in the current equations to be found?
A mathematical theory of collapse must be nonlinear, a significant departure from current quantum theory. So your suggestion that collapse theories are all a mess when collapse actually occurs is problematic while you excuse the current equations that fail to address collapse.
Current collapse theory doesn't fully explain wave collapse and definitely has problems. You keep returning to the mind as the actuator for wave collapse of which I've already said I don't personally believe this to be the case other than a loosely coupled relationship. In order for idealism to be proven true, the mind does not need to be proven as the actuator for wave collapse.
What "current equations" am I excusing that fail to address collapse?
So when the observer leaves the room the superposed states keep accumulating and all come crashing down when he gets back from the john?
This is hardly a good characterization of the observed phenomena in QM. Are you implying that the experimentation is faulty? Are you implying the the fundamental principle of superposition that we observe in the two slit experiment as well as others is incorrect? I'd love to hear about it. Honestly.
Suppose a measurement of an electron's spin component along some direction is being measured. The result can either be "up" or "down". The result of the measurement is automatically communicated to a printer that can either print "up" or "down". If human consciousness is what causes the collapse to the observed state, then the collapse would only occur when someone read the printout, and not before. Now suppose that the printer has just enough ink to print "up", and not enough ink to print "down". Furthermore, if the printer runs out of ink, a bell sounds in a secretary's office. If the secretary hears the bell, a collapse to "down" has clearly occurred before the bell sounded. If the secretary does not hear the bell, a collapse to "up" must have occurred--and no human interaction was necessary at all.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_collapse
This thought experiment is hardly relevant as we already know through experimentation that a particle's state after being observed appears to change even when the observation is late suggesting that it's entire trajectory going back in time is also altered at this point. We also don't know whether the particle's state changes when someone consciously observes the state of the particle or when it becomes a possibility via measurement for someone to consciously know the state of the particle. In QM, time and space don't apply. Again superposition suggests that this particle may be existing in all theoretical states until an actuator forces it to one specific state.
Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles. Wheeler likes to use the example of a high-energy particle released by a radioactive element like radium in Earth's crust. The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust. When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being, is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen. The trail of disrupted atoms left in the mica by the high-energy particle becomes part of the real world.
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse
Interesting, I wonder what observation took place to know or understand the interaction of radium with mica in the Earth's crust? It's as if he's trying to say that human consciousness has never observed this interaction that we somehow know about? Again, time and space don't apply in QM.
Why didn't you address the 2nd reference? Section 2 describes the fact that photons in route to the brain are going to collapse long before they get to the thing doing the collapsing in idealism. In section 3 the problem is extended back through our evolutionary past until we arrive at euglena gracilis a unicellular protozoan or more accurately an algal flagellate dating back 2 billion years that has an eye spot for searching and a chloroplast for photosynthesis. Both will need to collapse the wave function in order to function. Is there consciousness here? How does this differ from vitalism?
We currently still have no idea what "the thing doing the collapsing" is. Consciousness is far from being fully understood from any standpoint let alone the physical. Going back 2 million years would have no affect on this as time and space don't apply in QM. Regardless of the state of evolution on the Earth, we can't prove that no consciousness was observing or measuring this evolution, we only know at this point that the process of observing or measuring matter affects it in a specific way.
So maybe you can answer the problem here that Mikwut didn't for me.
How is this connection effected between mind and matter? The brain is made of matter and so it follows the laws of chemistry in evolving from one state to the next. In order for the mind to control the body it must affect the chemistry of the brain in some way other than what would result naturally from the laws of chemistry alone. To do that it must necessarily contradict the laws of chemistry. This would be observable via experimentation if it were happening.
If the mind were not violating the laws of chemistry then it would not be in control of the brain and hence of the motor control of the body. Instead the laws of chemistry alone would be in control.
This isn't a hard question to contemplate really. If matter in our universe exists in all theoretically possible states until some actuator forces it to exist in a specific state such as experimentation has been shown to be true, the the laws of chemistry that we observe in the brain would demonstrate the state of the the brain in it's observable state. Which again does no damage to idealism but rather confirms it. This theory makes no claims that consciousness or some other outside force controls or changes the chemistry in the mind violating any known physical laws, but rather, it is the fundamental building blocks for those laws and insures that they exist and function as we observe them. In order for idealism to be true, then physicalism must also be true in every OBSERVABLE instance other than our direct observation of the foundational building blocks such as we see in the two slit experiment and other experiments such as the ones that prove quantum entanglement.
You can't prove this either way.
correct
It's vitalism. We have enough experimental evidence that the mind is what the brain does to eliminate it.
Totally disagree. Idealism expects physicalism to account for every chemical reaction in the brain so the fact that we can observe this absolutely doesn't eliminate anything.
You and others in this thread have spent a great deal time trying to reason as to how consciousness can never affect the state of matter. The problem with this line of reasoning is that we know that observation of matter does in fact affect it. And the ability to observe and measure anything in our universe only has meaning when interacting with consciousness. And to take this one step further, to imagine a universe without consciousness is an ABSTRACT FUNCTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS. This idea doesn't prove that consciousness is the actuator but it's worth exploring these relationships in order to fully understand why matter behaves the way it does. ALL of this is PRE physicalism. Physicalism as you and others have described to argue against idealism is ALWAYS post-idealism and carries no weight as evidence in this instance even while simultaneously being scientifically sound and true in every sense of the word. I personally am not religious and I love science and the scientific method. But science goes nowhere without asking questions and exploring possibilities. QM has touched aspects of the foundational building blocks of our universe that seemingly defy reason. But in actuality, they don't defy reason, but rather more fully explain the physical nature of our universe, we just don't know enough yet for clarity.
I couldn't come up with some of the stuff that DCP comes up with, no matter how diabolical I wanted to be, or how hard I tried. Trust me.