I certainly don’t think the modern understanding in any of the interpretations I, or Maudlin, mentioned is that a thing called ‘consciousnesses’ forces ‘collapse’, if that’s what you are trying to imply.
Consciousness Causes Collapse is different from Objective Collapse is different from Copenhagen Interpretation.
In this passage …
As it’s highly unlikely that the universe is actually divided by some mysterious boundary between the domain of quantum mechanics and the domain of general relativity, nor between regular matter and some type of special ‘observer’ matter, the temptation to reject the *Copenhagen interpretation...
You link the CI to observers having a special role .
I still don’t get why you linked to that strange comment. Why bother if it has nothing to do with what you wish to inquire about?
If you intended to inquire only about this so called ‘Objective collapse’ theory that is one thing. But I don’t see the logical connection between that and me stating there’s a special role for observers in the commonly accepted variations of the Copenhagen Interpretation. That is perhaps the special feature of CI, although obviously not the only differentiating factor.
There are multiple speculative theories on the implications of having an observer in regards to QM, etc., of which it seems ‘Objective Collapse‘ theory belongs to. It certainly isn’t the only possibility. I don’t have any preference for any of these theories at all, in fact I haven’t even heard of this specific theory since I personally don’t work in the field and thus have no position to advocate or defend.
The CI.states that observers make observations that are classical in a certain sense, such as being real-valued. It doesn’t say that they cause anything, or that the WF is real..and therefore doesn’t need to say that the WF needs to be collapsed.
I agree, the special role of the observer in CI does not necessarily extend to any ’must cause something’, ‘need to be collapsed’, ‘xyz must be real’, etc., theories. Many theories argue the existence of the observer must imply x or y or z, or some combination thereof, but that’s not what this essay is concerned with nor do I endorse any specific theory.
What is ‘objective reduction’? Do you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-collapse_theory ?
If so why do you think I am conflating them?
I certainly don’t think the modern understanding in any of the interpretations I, or Maudlin, mentioned is that a thing called ‘consciousnesses’ forces ‘collapse’, if that’s what you are trying to imply.
Consciousness Causes Collapse is different from Objective Collapse is different from Copenhagen Interpretation.
In this passage …
You link the CI to observers having a special role .
I still don’t get why you linked to that strange comment. Why bother if it has nothing to do with what you wish to inquire about?
If you intended to inquire only about this so called ‘Objective collapse’ theory that is one thing. But I don’t see the logical connection between that and me stating there’s a special role for observers in the commonly accepted variations of the Copenhagen Interpretation. That is perhaps the special feature of CI, although obviously not the only differentiating factor.
There are multiple speculative theories on the implications of having an observer in regards to QM, etc., of which it seems ‘Objective Collapse‘ theory belongs to. It certainly isn’t the only possibility. I don’t have any preference for any of these theories at all, in fact I haven’t even heard of this specific theory since I personally don’t work in the field and thus have no position to advocate or defend.
The CI.states that observers make observations that are classical in a certain sense, such as being real-valued. It doesn’t say that they cause anything, or that the WF is real..and therefore doesn’t need to say that the WF needs to be collapsed.
I agree, the special role of the observer in CI does not necessarily extend to any ’must cause something’, ‘need to be collapsed’, ‘xyz must be real’, etc., theories. Many theories argue the existence of the observer must imply x or y or z, or some combination thereof, but that’s not what this essay is concerned with nor do I endorse any specific theory.