@joefromchicago,
Quote:Every time I close my refrigerator door I don't expect all of my food to disappear from existence, only to reappear again the next time I open the door.
That may be why it doesn't disappear...
But I've been thinking about this for a bit.
The basic idea is that collapse of quantum superposition happens when it is observed. That is when it collapses in to a definite, physical state, indicating that reality only comes into existence when it is observed.
So physical reality requires an observer in order to exist. But does observer neccesarily mean human observer?
Can there perhaps be some sort of observer function in quantum phenomena themselves? Can one wave function be thought of as the observer of another? Or rather, can they be thought of as eachother's observers?
It would seem that they would require some sort of consciousness for that to be possible.
But what is consciousness? It may be nothing more than an event of information. A sub atomic wave can be thought of as information. So when two waves interact it can be thought of an exchange of information, according to which the waves will interact to form reality.
The moment this happens, the moment when quantum information is transformed to reality, and potential is realized, could perhaps be called a moment of consciousness.
This may be all consciousness is. There may be no brain required for a conscious moment. It may be that a brain is only required to string together a series of conscious moments.
The thing is that if we can explain it like this, there is no paradox of how consciousness could come to be from dead matter.
There is no need for impossible concepts like "objective reality" because it would be obvious that consciousness is as naturally occuring in reality as matter, and so all objects are also subjects. It wouldn't matter if you called it subjective or objective reality, there is only one.
The way I see it, this idea doesn't contradict the traditional view, it only explains it differently. But I have to admit that I am not so familiar with quantum physics that I can know if these ideas are conscistent with what can be derived from and constructed out of it. It's only to the best of my ability to understand this idea that is still in the making, with a lot of work yet to do to make it practical and "user friendly". But I agree with those who believe that it is worth the effort, because what we can potentially gain in the way of deeper understanding, may clarify a great many things for us. But only if the seemingly incomprehensible aspects of this idea can be accounted for in such a way that they become less problematic than the issues it seeks to resolve.