Quantum Mechanics demonstrates beyond any shadow of doubt that the universe can be explained entirely by the physical properties of matter and how they interact, so there’s no longer any place for God, right? Right???
Not so fast, says Mind Matters’ Eric Holloway.
“If human observers are necessary for physical final causality to occur, how do humans come to have the capability in the first place? This question points to a yet even higher source of final causality that extends beyond the human realm, and is responsible for the final causality that humans exhibit,” Holloway writes.
Even if you are like me and are universes away from being able to claim to understand Quantum Mechanics, Holloway’s analysis will likely fascinate you and it will certainly give you some important new insights about our world and how it got here. Go here.
Human observers are not required for final causality in Quantum Mechanics. Even amongst supporters of the Copenhagen approach this has become a minority view.
LikeLike
In Quantum Mechanics, final causality is with or without human observers, it doesn’t depend on the presence of human observers, correct?
LikeLike
Short answer, no, there is no dependence upon human observers in QM.
Longer answer, there is one particular theory of the foundations of QM which posits that conscious observation causes wave function collapse; however, there are other, legitimate theories which describe QM without appealing to conscious observers and which often require fewer assumptions than this one does.
LikeLike
But with all due respect (and I really do mean that when I say it), if both possibilities are theories, then the short answer is an assumption, not a fact?
LikeLike
A theory is simply an explanatory model for some given phenomenon. Unfortunately, as regards the foundations of QM, there are multiple competing theories which have been offered to explain the same phenomena.
That said, this does not mean we have no way to decide if some of those models are better than others. For example, it is usually a good practice to choose explanations which require fewer or simpler assumptions while still offering a complete description of the phenomenon. There are dozens of theories of the foundations of QM which have fewer or simpler assumptions than the model which posits the necessity of conscious observation.
LikeLike
That being so, in assessing the competing theories, doesn’t it simply come down to a subjective judgement of the assorted characteristics of the available possibilities? What I’m struggling with here is it seems to me so long as the determination of the “correct” theory is a product of subjective human decision, we are left with endless efficient causality, or infinite regress.
LikeLike
Yes, in assessing the competing theories one must certainly make some sort of subjective judgment.
My initial point wasn’t that the model requiring human observation is incorrect and some other model is correct. Rather, my point is that we currently do not know which of the myriad competing models– if any– is correct and that it is therefore wrong to claim that Quantum Mechanics necessarily requires human observation.
LikeLike