# Quantum Mechanics and Mind **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 11, 2017, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322 "2017-08-11T07:49:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/61 "2017-08-11T19:05:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And the debate is…? Whether or not to use paragraph breaks. (I’ll be debating in the Affirmative.) ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/62 "2017-08-11T19:10:25Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > I’m not quoting all these scientists to present an ‘argument from authority’, but to show that some serious people who made important contributions to our scientific knowledge did not subscribe to materialism. And Newton believed he could find the Pilosopher’s Stone. So what? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/63 "2017-08-11T19:16:00Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > I’m not quoting all these scientists to present an ‘argument from authority’, but to show that some serious people who made important contributions to our scientific knowledge did not subscribe to materialism. So, you _are_ making an “argument from authority”? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/64 "2017-08-11T19:19:37Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > An interesting discussion of the ‘[philosophical zombie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie)’ problem. > > [Mary and the Zombies: Can Science Explain Consciousness?](https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/mary-and-the-zombies-can-science-explain-consciousness/) > > [Mary and the Zombies: Consciousness Revisited](https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/mary-and-the-zombies-consciousness-revisited/?ref=opinion) Jesus, Mary The Color Scientist & P-Zombies? [Is it 2007 again?](https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/RoboMaryfinal.htm) Mary and the Zombies is a case of failure of imagination, not physicalism. ---
**Author:** ![Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blue_blistering_barnacle/32/3386_2.png) [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blue_Blistering_Barnacle)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/65 "2017-08-11T19:31:58Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Jesus, Mary The Color Scientist & P-Zombies? [Is it 2007 again?](https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/RoboMaryfinal.htm) Mary and the Zombies is a case of failure of imagination, not physicalism. Where can I go to get a PhD in colors? I’m pretty good with a crayon already. I think the biggest problem I will have in being accepted to such a program is that I am a philosophical zombie. (But surely they can’t know that?) ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/66 "2017-08-11T20:00:38Z")
Philosophical Zombies are just about the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard of. OK, my take on P-Zombies and qualia: Look at this thing we have over here. It’s not a horse. Sure, it LOOKS like a horse. You can examine it in any way you choose, down to the molecular level, and it will look like a horse. Same DNA. Same cellular structure. Same gut bacteria. Same smell. Same taste. It can run around with the other horses, and the other horses will never know it’s not a horse. It looks and feels and tastes and smells and sounds exactly like a horse by every test you could possibly make. But it’s not a horse. It’s exactly like a horse, but it ISN’T A HORSE, you materialist bastards. I’ve just proved that horsey-ness is mysterious non-physical platonic quantum fairy-dust. Or maybe not. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/67 "2017-08-11T20:24:50Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > I think variations of the [many-minds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation) interpretation, particularly when taking a quantum Bayesianism point of view, take a decent stab at offering an explanation of quantum measurement. I may not be understanding this (by which I mean I _ **certainly** _ am not understanding this), but this many-minds interpretation seems to be saying that the result of every indeterminate state as perceived by each observer places the observer into a fantasy state where they thereafter perceive the universe in a way consistent with their arbitrarily-chosen result, when in fact the universe remains indeterminate and every other entity in it will arbitrarily be seeing a different universe in their _own_ minds. Which is to say, it’s parallel solipsism. Each person is in a universe in their own mind that is unaffected by the universe held in the mind of others. So if, say, there’s a gun set up to kill person A when an indeterminately polarized proton polarizes, then person B could watch person A be killed, mourn them, go to their funeral, etc, while simultaneously person A watched the gun not fire, talked to B, got in an argument, left the room, bought a gun, came back and shot B, and then burned the body. While simultaneously both of them are experiencing the same physical universe and the difference is only in their own minds. The thing is, though, other than basically stating that all humans are hallucinatory and insane, I’m not sure how this effects our understanding of the human mind in any way. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/68 "2017-08-11T20:54:36Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > This may be a bit off topic, but here are some excellent quotes by Einstein about his concept of religion: > > “The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.” >    - Einstein > > “…Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against the traditional ‘opium for the people’ — cannot bear the music of the spheres.” >   - Einstein > > “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” >   - Einstein > > “The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. However, I am also not a ‘Freethinker’ in the usual sense of the word because I find that this is in the main an attitude nourished exclusively by an opposition against naive superstition. My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as ‘laws of nature.’ It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Freethinker mentality.” >   - Einstein > > _In response to a question about what was meant by his ‘cosmic religion’:_ > > “It is not a religion that teaches that man is made in the image of God — that is anthropomorphic. Man has infinite dimensions and finds God in his conscience. This religion has no dogma other than teaching man that the universe is rational and that his highest destiny is to ponder it and co-create with its laws. There are only two limiting factors: first, that what seems impenetrable to us is as important as what is cut and dried; and, second, that our faculties are dull and can only comprehend wisdom and serene beauty in crude forms, but the heart of man through intuition leads us to greater understanding of ourselves and the universe.\* **My religion is based on Moses: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. And for me God is the First Cause. David and the prophets knew that there could be no love without justice or justice without love** \*. I don’t need any other religious trappings.” >   - Einstein Fortunately for Dr. Albert Einstein, his Nobel Prize was awarded for his achievements in [Theoretical Physics](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/), not Theology. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/69 "2017-08-11T22:16:47Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Fortunately for Dr. Albert Einstein, his Nobel Prize was awarded for his achievements in [Theoretical Physics](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/), not Theology. Unfortunately the concepts of the OP are being pushed by Theologians who claim an understanding of Physics like Deepak Chopra. But those quotes were also taken out of context on purpose, and from individuals who lived in a time where non-belief or refutation of belief had grave personal and political consequences. Even today national candidates from both parties can debase atheists with little risk, even stating that they would never knowingly hire one. But even with those social limits, lets look at one of the previous quotes in context. > [@](#): > > “Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. \*\*But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. \*\* To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” (boding mine) He is not using religion in the form most people who quote the passage claim, but to describe a profound curiosity about the universe beyond oneself. He is talking about the creation of new ideas, which then can be used to develop scientific tests of, not about some omnipotent parent figure. These pro-religious quotes always ignore others such as: > [@](#): > > "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” > > “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.” > > “Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the descernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious.” Back to the OP: To be clear, any claim that QFT has any relation to a higher consciousness is unproven and untested, while QFT is one of the best tested scientific theories in human history. Unless you are talking about the quantum effects in Voltage-gated sodium channels related to synapse potential or similar effects it is woo. These ideas are leveraging the trappings of science, ignoring the substance and randomly relating them to unscientific concepts. Deepak Chopra’s claims of a unified, shared consciousness demonstrates his basic misunderstandings of QFT, it is equivalent to the claim that a snowflake is conscious because you observe an avalanche. Do things interact: yes. Do things interact at a distance: yes Can those interactions be related: yes But just as you can describe a slab avalanche without manufacturing some form of God or shared consciousness, QFT can describe interactions without them too even if the interactions are beyond the humans ability to intuitively visualize. While there is lots of science to be worked on, and some unanswered questions, this is where the OP’s argument fails. Particularly this quote: > [@](#): > > by accepting it yet simultaneously not really understanding it We are products of the universe, and just as a puddle of water changes to fill it’s container we are a product of our environment. As we have _molded_ ourselves with limited abilities to detect and interact with this environment, while simultaneously needing to ensure survival and propagation we were optimized for those needs and not in a way that is universally correct. We are a product of our container, and not some special external entity. Without cause, or ability we would never have evolved the ability to visualize space-time, nor would we evolve the ability to understand quantum interactions. These phenomenon are foreign to any experiences that were available at our scale/lifetime. Tools we have developed to work around these limitations like the Copenhagen Interpretation, spacetime diagrams, various paradoxes, and other tools are to work past this limitation. It allows us to break down a problem into something that can be moved forward and tested. We can develop tests and predictions in these domains and can develop tools to help us understand them but the belief that we have to have an intuitive understanding is false. The difference between dreaming up some quantum concept of the mind and QFT is that one of these allowed us to have this debate, in fact without QFT this exchange would be impossible. And that benefit is exactly the benefit of the scientific method, which is really the best known tool to avoid our cognitive limitations. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/70 "2017-08-11T22:33:40Z")
Wait, hold on, are you implying that the argument is that quantum mechanics provides little ‘holes’ through which eternal soul ghosts have strung the strings that let them manipulate physical bodies like puppets? Is _that_ the argument? Because that sounds _ **nothing** _ like the ‘many-minds’ thing I was pointed out when I asked how quantum mechanics was supposed to be effecting brain function. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2017, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/71 "2017-08-12T02:50:23Z")
Einstein was right. It _ **is** _ funny!  :) ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2017, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/72 "2017-08-12T03:27:04Z")
If you claim that something is unknowable, how do you know? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2017, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/73 "2017-08-12T06:37:32Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > Let’s say our hypothesis is that the Universe was in a superposition of states, some with the Earth existing and some with it not, before the first conscious being appeared appeared and made and observation that caused a reduction to a state where the Earth definitely existed. Decoherence can explain why we do not see evidence of this previous superposition. Of course that particular hypothesis does rather beg the question as to how that conscious being came into existence, but my point is that the classical nature of the large scale does not preclude explanations of quantum mechanics which invoke consciousness. That’s very interesting, but given that geologists actually have a name for the period on Earth before life appeared (the “Hadean”, and they believe it lasted about 600 million years) and I assume they do so based on solid evidence. If the Earth _didn’t_ exist in some fashion before life (let alone consciousness), this strikes me as akin to fundamentalist beliefs that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and evidence that seems to indicate it is older is either planted by God to test and fool us, or being grossly misinterpreted and/or misrepresented by a conspiracy of atheist scientists. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2017, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/74 "2017-08-12T06:41:17Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > Physicists need to STOP declaring that the observation of a wave particle “causes” the quantum field to collapse into one state or another. It’s that kind of semantics that leads to nonsense like this thread. But isn’t it the very act of observation which causes the collapse? What else is changing to cause a particle to assume one state over another if not simple observation? Perhaps the use of the word “cause” is what you disagree with? We aren’t “causing” the particle to collapse, but rather it always exists in dual states and we are limited by observational methodology to see it in dual states? ---
**Author:** ![abashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@abashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abashed)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2017, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/75 "2017-08-12T08:02:41Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Yes! Or else how did we get here to start experiencing it? > > Really, this is just ‘if a tree falls…’ stuff. Okay, but how do you touch, see, smell or otherwise measure an idea? As to the tree thing, how _do_ you ‘hear’ the sound of a tree that falls in the forest if there are no ears about? Sure, energy is produced, but is that really _sound_ as we experience sound? We’re back to the observer effect again, something that seems impossible to get away from. Phenomena in the absence of an observer is not the same as phenomena + observation. How can all these quantum measurements be kept in isolation from our observation of them? Answer: They can’t because our awareness of what is happening is the result of a chain of effects from beginning to end. That is, any observation must pass through our ‘filters’ of perception which modifies whatever it was we were observing in the first place. We cannot see the real world, only the world as presented by our senses. ---
**Author:** ![abashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@abashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abashed)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2017, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/76 "2017-08-12T08:10:59Z")
I think this may be why we are baffled by QM because we are trying to use a brain and nervous system that was designed to operate in the macro-world of solid objects that exist in time. The effects of QM we see seem to be screwing with our senses, leading to a false picture of reality. ---
**Author:** ![abashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@abashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abashed)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2017, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/77 "2017-08-12T08:40:12Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > But isn’t it the very act of observation which causes the collapse? What else is changing to cause a particle to assume one state over another if not simple observation? > > Perhaps the use of the word “cause” is what you disagree with? We aren’t “causing” the particle to collapse, but rather it always exists in dual states and we are limited by observational methodology to see it in dual states? Yes, it’s the way you choose to measure a ‘quantum’ object’ that counts. It’s actually more helpful to think of a photon or electron or positron or any other sub-atomic particle as an\* idea\* rather than an actual physical thing because no matter how you choose to measure such objects, in the end, you are left with just the idea of it. Why? Because you can’t use your normal five senses with which to detect such phenomena, at least, not directly. You have to use special scientific equipment to accomplish this but in doing so you are modifying the basic phenomena. This is okay and it’s really not our fault since human beings have always devised tools in attempting to control their environment in one way or another, however, usually we have been able to engage our senses directly in doing so but in the case of the sub-atomic world this is not possible and we have to be content with constructing models based on what data our experiments give us. An analogy would be a blind man using a stick with which to ‘understand’ his surroundings. He cannot see anything so he relies on his stick to ‘feel’ his way around but this information is second-hand and is only a representation of what is really there. Even so, he can make a good enough ‘model’ of reality to make predictions and draw conclusions. This is a similar situation to what we do in studying quantum mechanics or any other phenomena, come to that. ---
**Author:** ![abashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@abashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abashed)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2017, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/78 "2017-08-12T09:30:22Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > My point is, that your points are all based on a misunderstanding of the primary subject area which you based them all on. > > That IS a reasoned argument against them. Well, again, you are making sweeping statements without presenting any logical arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2017, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/79 "2017-08-12T09:36:41Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’m not trying to dispute that at some fundamental level the universe evolves quantum mechanically, and indeed one could argue that it _ **has** _ to be true. But there is nothing in QM that requires us to take such a totally unwarranted anthropocentric view of what “observer” means in the context of wavefunction collapse that we leap to conclusions about consciousness as a causative factor, which are even more unfounded than my unicorn hypothesis. That’s not science, it’s woo. > ISTM that the only one here who thinks there’s an easy answer is the OP. But the question of the role of consciousness in QM is unresolved, so we simply cannot say our explanations must be devoid of it as that is founded more in an opinion rather than a fact. My problem with what you say is that it is dangerously closer to saying we can explain observation at a fundamental level without confronting how the properties of an observer relate to their observation and we can always be sure that the concept of an ideal observer remains theoretically valid. I’m not saying it is this way or it is another way I am saying with the current information we have it is best to remain agnostic on the issue. Wavefunction collapse is central to many of the interpretational problems of quantum mechanics. It appears to be inserted by hand into the theory as it is a momentary time evolution occurring in certain situations and is entirely different from, and can never be replicated by, the unitary time evolution that occurs at all other times. Worse still we cannot even adequately say what the defining features are of those certain situations when collapse occurs beyond the vague label of “measurments”. In addition decoherence seems to be necessary for collapse, but decoherence cannot explain collapse as decoherence is unitary. As the projection postulate (i.e. collapse of the wavefunction) doesn’t fit all that comfortably in the framework of quantum mechanics it seems obvious to seek an explanation that eliminates it as fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. For example many-worlds theory takes the tact trying to interpret quantum mechanics in the most literal way possible The problem though is it becomes difficult to explain why we observe what we observe. Many-minds is a quite natural way of taking the key idea of many-worlds theory of the central truth of the universal wavefunction and trying to explain why we see the world as we see it. Consciousness it not a well-defined idea, but there seems to be at least a start to definition of it in something like many-minds. There are other ways to eliminate collapse such as deterministic hidden variables theories, but even in HVTs the limitations of the observer are important in defining the ‘reality’ they observe. ---
**Author:** ![abashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@abashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abashed)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2017, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/80 "2017-08-12T09:41:41Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > It should be understood that the collapse of the waveform in the Copenhagen Interpretation (which is one of the oldest and most widely taught interpretations) is a mathematical formalism that is not itself observed or measured; it is just a starting place for calculation which is no more realistic than instantanous mixing of gases or infinite impulse transfer in momentum. The lack of an physical ontology is problematic insofar as everything we do observe appears to be constructed in a way that has an objective reality without conflict between interactions. The Copenhagen interpretation, as useful as it is in teaching the basic operations of particle interactions at a quantum level without getting wound up with hidden variables or many worlds interpretation, is almost certainly wrong; a toy model that only works with very restricted assumptions. > > As for consciousness and cognition, as much as we understand the processes of it (which is a hierarchy of different levels of processes distributed throughout the brain), there is no reason to believe it is dependent upon quantum mechanics beyond the decohered level that all chemistry obeys, and certainly not just based on the fact hat we don’t understand either quantum mechanics or cognition very well. This is purely a false equivilence. > > Stranger Yes, this is correct. The Copenhagen _is_ just a model, in common with all the other ‘interpretations’, and perhaps it is a\* toy\* model, but then human beings have only been doing modern science for a few hundred years or so and therefore it is unavoidable that our current ideas will eventually be supplanted by something else in the future. Of course, this is no reason to give up because as we gain more and more experience we will be able to refine our models to be more inclusive (hopefully). The important thing is to keep thinking about how we can set-up future experiments to gain further insight about the subject matter. Of course, we still need to bear in mind that the models we do erect are just that - ‘models’ - and so we can expect to be surprised or even shocked by what we might find in the future because, in the final analysis, nature is much smarter than us and always will be. In fact, we\* are\* part of nature so I suppose nature is surprising itself, in a way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322.md?page=5)