I How To Experimentally Confirm the Wigner-Von Neumann Interpretation

[PeterDonis]

This prediction can simply not be derived from the hypothesis (or from relation (2)).

That's entirely possible since no math is given. I would be interested to see if there are any rebuttal papers to that one in the literature.

In any case, the experimental results make clear that even if such a prediction could be derived from the hypothesis, or one like it, it is falsified by the data.

 

[PeterDonis]

Given that a "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation exists

No, we don't even know that. So far we have only one paper that states a hypothesis--but as @gentzen points out, it's not even clear that the claimed experimental prediction being different from standard QM follows from that hypothesis.

here is my retraction

You aren't retracting the actual problematic claim you have made:

You claimed that Von Neumann and Wigner proposed a "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation, or something like it, which makes different experimental predictions from standard QM.

1) Instead of saying the Von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation, you all want me to say the "conscious causes collapse" interpretation.

No, I want you to either substantiate or retract your claim that Von Neumann and Wigner actually proposed such an interpretation that makes different experimental predictions from standard QM.

2) Instead of saying the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation makes different experimental predictions than the standard theory, you all want me to say it's actually the hypothesis which logically follows from the interpretation that makes the different predictions.

You are misunderstanding the issue. See above.

anyone can see that what I'm saying is extremely uncontroversial.

This is obviously false since pretty much every other poster besides you in this thread has questioned what you are saying.

Here's what I'm saying one more time: 1) The "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation exists. 2) It entails a hypothesis which makes different experimental predictions than the standard theory. If that earns me misinformation, oh well I guess...

Indeed.

Id say that's on you, not me.

It's on me to moderate these forums. But making claims that you can't back up is on you.

Thread closed.

 

[PeterDonis]

For reference, here is information provided by @gentzen on rebuttal papers:

That's entirely possible since no math is given. I would be interested to see if there are any rebuttal papers to that one in the literature.

Here is the list of papers that cite "Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness":
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&cites=1255182269027852700

The second item is "Can we Falsify the Consciousness-Causes-Collapse Hypothesis in Quantum Mechanics?" by J. Acacio de Barros, Gary Oas
https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.00614
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-017-0110-7
The abstract makes it clear that this is a rebuttal paper:

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. ...

Also, reference 13 is the paper by Yu and Nikolic previously referred to, and is one of the proposals specifically stated to be refuted.