Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum mind–body problem


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. As far as I can tell, it's not clear even to most of those who argue for keeping the article what exactly it should be about. The "keep" opinions point out that this combination of words has many Google hits, mentions in the media and suchlike, but that is a weak argument to counter the credible assertion by Coren and Ymblanter that there is no topic with that name in science, and that the various Google hits and mentions in sources refer to a variety of different topics and ideas (which may or may not be individually notable), which makes the article original research by synthesis. Arguments based on the core policy of WP:NOR outweigh arguments based on (asserted) notability.  Sandstein  10:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Quantum mind–body problem

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A combination of non-notable and original research. Non-notable because I can't find a reliable source discussing a concept called "quantum mind-body problem" or something close to it. Original research because while much of the material is fact (or poorly paraphrased fact), the juxtaposition of all of it as a single concept seems to be novel to this article. Also, much of it exists elsewhere in Wikipedia already. Sancho 05:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep Keep and rename "Consciousness causes collapse": Wigner popularized the exact term and the article provides sources for that.—Machine Elf 1735  06:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not able to verify this by following the sources in the article. Could you be specific about which source says this? Sancho 06:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction, I think you're right... he just used "mind-body problem" for his notorious take on the measurement problem.—Machine Elf 1735  07:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I reworked the 'background and history' and now you can follow the sources. Alma (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although rambling and not very coherent there are sufficient pop-science sources to keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Sure, most of the article is cited. But to present that material together as a concept of the "quantum mind-body problem" seems like original research, unless there is another source that does so. I can't find one. I can't even find one that presents this concept at all. Sancho 06:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and possibly rename. There are over 5,000 hits at GScholar for the phrase Quantum "mind-body problem". There are books devoted to the topic, such as, Lockwood, Michael. Mind, brain and the quantum: The compound'I.'. Basil Blackwell, 1989. and Stapp, Henry P. Mind, matter, and quantum mechanics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004.. There are articles in reputable journals like Ludwig, Kirk. "Why the difference between quantum and classical physics is irrelevant to the mind/body problem."Psyche 2, no. 16 (1995). and Goswami, Amit. "Consciousness in quantum physics and the mind-body problem." Journal of Mind and Behavior (1990).. This seems like a highly notable topic. The article itself is well-cited in some sections, not so well cited in others. There are some statements that seem like original research and there is probably some synthesis. But per WP:SYNTHNOT, simple juxtaposition is not synthesis. There is some good material in the article, too and the problems it has are surmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Those sources don't talk about the quantum mind-body problem. They talk about the mind body problem, and how quantum mechanics supposedly is related, or not related, depending on the source. One of them (Why the difference between quantum and classical physics is irrelevant to the mind/body problem) even takes the position that this is the same as the age-old mind-body problem, and that the quantum aspect doesn't add anything to it. I can't find a source that defines the concept "quantum mind-body problem", let alone one that defines it as presented in this article. How many sources are there for the phrase "quantum mind-body problem"? Sancho 06:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The thousands of hits at GScholar and quoted sources above show that the mind-body problem in the context of quantum physics is a highly notable topic and it seems to be the topic of this article. We should have an article on this topic and deletion should be a last resort. If folks don't like the title, we can rename it to something more acceptable. How about Mind-body problem (quantum aspects) or some other alternative? --Mark viking (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ouch, I agree that the article should be kept and renamed Mark, but that's a really bad suggestion for the reasons Coren has given.—Machine Elf 1735  06:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The article may need improvement, but the topic is well known in the field. Greg Bard (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please demonstrate that it is well-known in the field. Sancho 21:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete; the "the problem" isn't well-known in the field, it doesn't exist in any field. That there are mind-body problem articles that have the word "quantum" in it is the only thing those supposed google hits demonstrate, and none of the so-called sources named above ever state such.  This article is analogous to claiming there is such a thing as the "vector three-body problem" because there are papers about the three-body problem that mention the word "vector".  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely you've heard of Consciousness causes collapse which redirects to this article? The article is clearly notable under that title and has a long history...—Machine Elf 1735  05:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rename This article was renamed to the present title, apparently without discussion, in 2009.  (See the article talk page.)  It probably should revert to its previous title "Consciousness causes collapse", or something similar, and be appropriately edited.  "Consciousness causes collapse" is an interpretation of QM based on ideas of John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner. (See the article Interpretations of quantum mechanics).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Wiki (talk • contribs) 17:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed.—Machine Elf 1735  17:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Coren Secret account 15:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, Coren does a much better job of explaining it than I could hope to. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: It may be BS, but it is notable BS. The standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that consciousness causes collapse of the wave-function which is part of this article. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The standard Copenhagen interpretation doesn't imply that. From Copenhagen interpretation, Although the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function. Sancho 19:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That sentence in the Copenhagen interpretation article appears erroneous. It cites p. 137 of Heisenberg's book Physics and Philosophy, which includes the statement, "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are brought into the description of nature.  The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual,' is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."  However, earlier in the book, Heisenberg states: "we may say that the transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual' takes place as soon as the interaction of the object with measuring device, and thereby with the rest of the world, has come into play; it is not connected with the act of registration of the result in the mind of the observer.  The discontinuous change in the probability function, however, takes place with the act of registration, because it is the discontinuous change of our knowledge in the instant of registration that has its image in the discontinuous change in the probability function."  Heisenberg confusingly uses of the terms "registration" and "observer" differently in the two statements (which are from two different lectures that he had given).  However, from the second (from the lecture titled "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory"), it seems clear that he thinks "consciousness causes collapse" of the wavefunction.J-Wiki (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete It is a garble of a popular interpretation of quantum mechanics and concepts from psychology and philosophy. BlueMist (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but edit and rename: WP needs to draw a clear distinction between science and pseudoscience. The article should be renamed Consciousness causes collapse and all other content besides that should be deleted or moved to Mind-body problem or pseudoscience articles. -- Chetvorno TALK 20:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the relevant material is already covered at Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics. Sancho 19:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly Sancho, I don't really disagree with anything you're saying, except the part about deleting the article... please notice that each of the individual "interpretation" sections on that page should be a WP:SUMMARY of their main articles. That being said, it strains credibility even to treat this as a reasonable interpretation... certainly not mainstream, but notorious none-the-less.—Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  21:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note. In my opinion, a re-name would also require an extensive trimming of the article to include simply the core elements of the interpretation that consciousness causes collapse. Presenting all of the other information in the manner that it currently is presented is original research, regardless of the name of the article. Sancho 20:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and clarify. It was implied as counterargument to quantum theory by The Man and stated by Pascual Jordan (Physics today, April 1985, http://www.its.caltech.edu/~qoptics/ph135b/Bell-inequalities_v2_r.pdf). It should be refined by clearly stating that this is philosophy or more precisely philosophy of science; since philosophy of science treats as per definition the implications of science and overlaps metaphysics, the article falls under this exact category. It is obvious that this is a common topic for the laymen and we should use this opportunity to clarify that the math works regardless of any interpretations to the subject. There is an entire book which is quoted as reference to the article - Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness (Oxford University Press, July 2006) - that treats this subject in this precise manner. I know because I was unfortunate enough to read it. The book is written by two physicists (one a former owner of a physics chair at UC Santa Cruz). I am compelled to say it looks legit. Should anyone be interested on their view on the topic, this page http://quantumenigma.com/controversy states they will try to answer questions from the book's readers and provides their .edu email addresses. I think we can't cross that and still respect NPOV. (talk)  Alma 21:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding information about Basil Hiley, british q-physicist who received a Majorana prize 2012 and wrote "Can Mind Aﬀect Matter Via Active Information?" (http://www.bbk.ac.uk/tpru/BasilHiley/CanMindEffMatterBJHPP05.pdf). The problem seems to be known in the field. Further clarification: the problem is due to the probability wave definition. A system does not have a state but an associated probability wave; there is no naive way of determining whether a particle has intrinsic "properties" or is actually just a probability wave because to determine its properties you need to observe it by measurement. The next problem is the difference between 'observation' - which is made with the eyes - and 'measurement' which is done by intrusive means, like photon bombardment, deep inelastic scattering etc. The philosophy of physics steps in and asks 'what does this mean?';is the result due to 'measurement' or due to 'observation'? ie 'if you would look at the particle (with the eyes), would you see a probability cloud, would you see a collapsed state or there should be a probability cloud but you never get to see it because it collapses when you observe it (again, with the eyes)?'. Measurement and observation are not equivalent. Alma (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Basil Hiley article doesn't talk about anything in the current article. It doesn't mention the mind-body problem at all. It doesn't talk about the necessity or effect of consciousness on the collapse of the wave function. The closest it comes is a discussion in Section 4 proposing possible connections with neuroscience, and mentions none of the material that this Wikipedia article covers. In my opinion, this Basil Hiley article only appears to be related to the content in this Wikipedia article because of its title, but is actually not. I also don't find this topic covered in http://www.its.caltech.edu/~qoptics/ph135b/Bell-inequalities_v2_r.pdf. The rest of your position is original research. Sancho 15:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I reworked the background and history as there was room for clarification. I can probably improve the entire article should it be kept. I am not sure how can one rigorously prove or disprove the 'original research' issue - there are solid references and other than that I can't comment. I recommend to read all the material in the references before issuing a personal opinion, especially given most of it is available online. To answer one of your objections, the second page of the Physics Today issue features Jordan's literal statement "observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it". This subject is also treated in detail in Brian Greene's writings along with connected subjects such as the many world interpretation. Simply stating that the people who treated this topic meant to say something else does not make a valid argument as per Wikipedia's guidelines. I see no mention of the category under which it falls - is that still a problem. I noticed that you edited the page and changed 'observation' with 'measurement' prior to proposing the delete(as you considered the word more neutral according to your comments) thus changing the meaning of a few sentences. There is a clear difference between the two and I mentioned that difference before - let me know if you think of that difference to be original research as well. Alma (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it. I did read this. This is consistent with the standard Copenhagen interpretation and doesn't introduce any "mind-body problem" and does not refer to "consciousness". I have read most of the material and agree that much of this article is well-cited. Many sentences are supported by reference, but their presentation as a unified concept is novel to this article. I changed observation to measurement in those sentences, because that that section was referring to the Copenhagen interpretation. Since this section was unreferenced, I couldn't simply make the wording match the reference, so I made it match the wording at the Copenhagen interpretation article, which prefers "measurement" over "observation" throughout. Sancho 17:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Revert "Consciousness causes collapse" to a previous version and then redirect the present article to that target. Deletion would likely lead to the Consciousness causes collapse redirect being speedy-deleted by WP:CSD leaving a red link. That would be wholly unacceptable – see these links to it and more before double redirects were "fixed". How the CCC topic should be handled would be better decided at a talk page than here but this is my opinion. (1) taken exactly and literally the current title is not a topic suitable for WP (I'm not convinced the topic exists). (2) "Consciousness causes collapse" must lead the reader somewhere, either to Interpretations of quantum mechanics (although a more extended treatment would be preferable) or as a "main" article vaguely along the lines of this 2008 version. I prefer a separate main article, hardly at all like the present one but more like the 2008 one. Thincat (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Consciousness causes collapse" interpretation of QM is notable enough to warrant its own full article, and I agree that reviving an old version of "CCC" is probably a good way to begin. However, pertinent information in the current article, added since 2008, should be transferred to the new "CCC" article, while omitting all the extraneous.J-Wiki (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, although I don't like QMBP myself, there may be content worth salvaging. That's why I suggested redirecting QMBP to the revamped CCC article, so keeping stuff in its history for possible merging. AFD is not a good place to be. Thincat (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin. If this article is deleted please also redirect Consciousness causes collapse to Interpretations of quantum mechanics to keep the link blue and to preserve the history (some of which would be highly relevant). I am inviting anyone objecting to this to say so here. Thincat (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note As much of this was caused by the title, the article should definitely be renamed. While I personally disagree with this interpretation and can bring reasonable arguments regarding my position (did the universe tunnel into a state with observers?), I also believe that the public searching for sources on the subject of "consciousness/collapse of the wavefunction" should be properly informed. Should it be kept I offer to trim the article and add relevant information about how the problem is viewed in the present, to clarify and cover all the relevant viewpoints - for example Englert wrote in August this year a comprehensive paper on the modern take (http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.5290). This whole thing is however on the very thin line between physics and philosophy so I will appreciate any input as to how it should be treated. Alma (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. For me as a quantum physicist this looks like WP:COATRACK. Tiny pieces of certainly notable things are put together and bound by original synthesis.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.