298
M. Svrˇ cek
for the first time in Heisenberg [34]. In addition, Howard also argues that it was
Heisenberg’s exposition of complementarity, and not Bohr’s, with its emphasis on
a privileged role for the observer and observer-induced wave packet collapse that
became identical with that interpretation. Says he: “Whatever Heisenberg’s motivation, his invention of a unitary Copenhagen view on interpretation, at the center of
which was his own, distinctively subjectivist view of the role of the observer, quickly
found an audience”. This audience included people like Bohm, Feyerabend, Hanson,
and Popper who used Heisenberg’s presentation of complementarity as the target for
their criticism of the orthodox view.”
Furthermore he says: “Recently, Henderson [35] has come to a similar conclusion.
He makes a distinction between different versions of Copenhagen interpretations
based on statements from some of the main characters. On one side of the spectrum
there is Bohr who did not think of quantum measurement in terms of a collapse of
the wave function; in the middle we find Heisenberg talking about the collapse as
an objective physical process but thinking that this couldn’t be analyzed any further
because of its indeterministic nature, and at the opposite side Johann von Neumann
and Eugene Wigner argued that the human mind has a direct influence on the reduction
of the wave packet. Unfortunately, von Neumann’s dualistic view has become part
of the Copenhagen mythodology by people opposing this interpretation.”
Wigner seems to be the last contributor of the philosophical conception of quantum
theory, known today as the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. Let us take a closer
look on a more detailed study of Wigner’s writings, such as the preprint of Primas and
Esfeld [36], where Wigner’s original definition of the measurement process reads:
“[The reduction of the wave packet] takes place whenever the result of an observation enters the consciousness of the observer—or, to be even more painfully precise,
my consciousness, since I am the only observer, all other people being only subjects of my observations… The measurement is not completed until its result enters
our consciousness. This last step occurs when a correlation is established between
the state of the last measuring apparatus and something which directly affects our
consciousness. This last step is, at the present state of our knowledge, shrouded
in mystery and no explanation has been given for it so far in terms of quantum
mechanics, or in terms of any other theory” [31].
Accordingly Primas and Esfeld exhibit Wigner’s attempt to avoid the position of
excessive subjectivity allowing the person’s mind to be in a state of superposition,
figuratively known under the name of Wigner’s friend.
Moreover they continue: “Wigner’s main argument for his view is that it is “difficult to accept the possibility that a person’s mind is in a superposition of two states…
We ourselves never have felt we were in such superpositions.” [37] In this context,
Wigner discusses the famous “paradox of Wigner’s friend”: If one observer describes
another observer who observes something like a von Neumann chain and if the first
observer describes this whole process in the terminology of quantum mechanics, he
will end up with ascribing a superposition of different states of consciousness to the
second observer. Wigner avoids this paradox by maintaining that quantum theory
does not apply to consciousness so that there are no superpositions of different states
of consciousness. A state reduction occurs at the level of the friend’s consciousness
M. Svrˇ cek
for the first time in Heisenberg [34]. In addition, Howard also argues that it was
Heisenberg’s exposition of complementarity, and not Bohr’s, with its emphasis on
a privileged role for the observer and observer-induced wave packet collapse that
became identical with that interpretation. Says he: “Whatever Heisenberg’s motivation, his invention of a unitary Copenhagen view on interpretation, at the center of
which was his own, distinctively subjectivist view of the role of the observer, quickly
found an audience”. This audience included people like Bohm, Feyerabend, Hanson,
and Popper who used Heisenberg’s presentation of complementarity as the target for
their criticism of the orthodox view.”
Furthermore he says: “Recently, Henderson [35] has come to a similar conclusion.
He makes a distinction between different versions of Copenhagen interpretations
based on statements from some of the main characters. On one side of the spectrum
there is Bohr who did not think of quantum measurement in terms of a collapse of
the wave function; in the middle we find Heisenberg talking about the collapse as
an objective physical process but thinking that this couldn’t be analyzed any further
because of its indeterministic nature, and at the opposite side Johann von Neumann
and Eugene Wigner argued that the human mind has a direct influence on the reduction
of the wave packet. Unfortunately, von Neumann’s dualistic view has become part
of the Copenhagen mythodology by people opposing this interpretation.”
Wigner seems to be the last contributor of the philosophical conception of quantum
theory, known today as the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. Let us take a closer
look on a more detailed study of Wigner’s writings, such as the preprint of Primas and
Esfeld [36], where Wigner’s original definition of the measurement process reads:
“[The reduction of the wave packet] takes place whenever the result of an observation enters the consciousness of the observer—or, to be even more painfully precise,
my consciousness, since I am the only observer, all other people being only subjects of my observations… The measurement is not completed until its result enters
our consciousness. This last step occurs when a correlation is established between
the state of the last measuring apparatus and something which directly affects our
consciousness. This last step is, at the present state of our knowledge, shrouded
in mystery and no explanation has been given for it so far in terms of quantum
mechanics, or in terms of any other theory” [31].
Accordingly Primas and Esfeld exhibit Wigner’s attempt to avoid the position of
excessive subjectivity allowing the person’s mind to be in a state of superposition,
figuratively known under the name of Wigner’s friend.
Moreover they continue: “Wigner’s main argument for his view is that it is “difficult to accept the possibility that a person’s mind is in a superposition of two states…
We ourselves never have felt we were in such superpositions.” [37] In this context,
Wigner discusses the famous “paradox of Wigner’s friend”: If one observer describes
another observer who observes something like a von Neumann chain and if the first
observer describes this whole process in the terminology of quantum mechanics, he
will end up with ascribing a superposition of different states of consciousness to the
second observer. Wigner avoids this paradox by maintaining that quantum theory
does not apply to consciousness so that there are no superpositions of different states
of consciousness. A state reduction occurs at the level of the friend’s consciousness