Talk:Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation

Chalmers
Chalmers quote in objections section Chalmers' own response to his quote is worth including from 'Consciousnes and It's Place in Nature' (2002). There is some irony in the fact that philosophers reject interactionism on largely physical grounds* (it is incompatible with physical theory), while physicists reject an interactionist interpretation of quantum mechanics on largely philosophical grounds (it is dualistic).

and in the footnote he directly responds to points he made in 1996:


 * I have been as guilty of this as anyone, setting aside interactionism in Chalmers 1996 partly for reasons of compatibility with physics. I am still not especially inclined to endorse interactionism, but I now think that the argument from physics is much too glib. Three further reasons for rejecting the view are mentioned in Chalmers 1996. First, if consciousness is to make an interesting qualitative difference to behavior, this requires that it act nonrandomly, in violation of the probabilistic requirements of quantum mechanics. I think there is something to this, but one could bite the bullet on nonrandomness in response, or one could hold that even a random causal role for consciousness is good enough. Second, I argued that denying causal closure yields no special advantage, as a view with causal closure can achieve much the same effect via type-F monism. Again there is something to this, but the type-D view does have the significant advantage of avoiding the type-F view’s “combination problem.” Third, it is not clear that the collapse interpretation yields the sort of causal role for consciousness that we expect it to have. I think that this is an important open question that requires detailed investigation.

His shift in perspective seems relevant, rather than simply presenting an immature view of his which he later rescinded. 151.229.113.253 (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC) JJBeer

I'm not sure how to modify the article but I invite you to refer to my work of precise formulation of this interpretation, arguments against other interpretations, and many references. Spoirier (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Objection
Why is so most of this article on objection? The objection section is so large despite simply amounting to "it is incompatible with materialism, which most physicists subscribe to." --140.32.16.52 (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe the editors dislike this interpretation. Roger (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes it is visible that the editors disliked this interpretation and do not have any proper argument to offer :) Spoirier (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In particular, the article "Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness" which is presented as an argument, is ridiculous bullshit, as I commented in my reference page.Spoirier (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well said. Henry Stapp put some great arguments refuting the objections in this page in several encyclopedia-worthy tomes. I'll work on adding them in the future, too. --DawnDusk (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed Stapp makes some good points but I disagree with him on technical details: he locates free will on the "Heisenberg choice" (that requires special circumstances like the quantum Zeno effect to operate) while I see it on the "Dirac choice", thus easier to operate by the mere amplification of microscopic quantum randomness by chaotic effects. More details on the disagreement in this page I just added in a try to raise the scientific level of the debate (which is going poor in some places). Spoirier (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This page is for improving the article, not for voicing your agreement or disagreement with sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Radin's experiments
As the article says, All interpretations of quantum mechanics are empirically indistinguishable, as they all predict the same outcomes to quantum mechanical experiments.

So, experiments by parapsychologists such as Dean Radin, or by anyone else, are not relevant for this article. Even if they were, they would not belong in the section "The interpretation". I deleted that paragraph. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * After your edit the paragraph was put back. Curiously without the previously added refutation. I deleted it again. Julia947 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)