[TinyTree]

The assumption here is that quantum decoherence requires a specific observer. That is to say, for a long time in quantum mechanical circles it was thought that a conscious mind had to interact with a quantum system to cause it to resolve- to reduce the state vector.

According to this theory, an observer had to see the results of a quantum experiment, such as with the Shrodinger cat experiment, before the actual reality became final. Thus, until an observer looked in on the Shrodinger cat experiment, the cat was both alive and dead.

Well for this assumption, not only does quantum mechanical state vector reduction require an observer- it requires a SPECIFIC observer. However, no one knows which person is required (yet, perhaps it could be experimentally verified). If it was known that a certain person was required to collapse the state vector, but no one knew who it was, what would that mean for society? For the individual?

[michellemfry]

Could I suggest that if the specific observer were to fail to observe, there would be obvious consequence? If the specific observer simply observed, there may be no fanfare or tah-dah. Simply fulfilling the purpose for which one was designed is simply functioning normally. The failure to observe by the specific observer would represent a breakdown in the process, a catastrophe. While the accomplishment of such an unlikely event as one observer and one observation is met with no discernable affect whatsoever. Yet, it is a rare and endangered event in the making. One observer and one observation. Now that is a pair that is as significant as A-T and G-C.

Good question for the assume it to be true. These are fun to do. Pure speculation based upon fundamentals can be good scientific exercise. It is in a way the making of fact and fiction to be indistinguishable which was predicted to be chaos and unproductive to the scientist. Here it is held for the exercise that it is. Accept something you know is fiction as fact and respond accordingly.
We are not relying on the universe to actually exist this way, so we are not relying on the outcome for truth or fact. It remains the facts based upon an absurdity. Yet, somehow, the use of fundamentals is the only logic that remains when all is said and done. The ends justified the means, which in this case involved an absurdity.
How is this possible? Did the use of fundamentals negate the absurdity? Is that the way the universe actually handles absurdities that arise in nature?
They do arise, do they not? The correction of an anomaly with known physical laws is an interesting topic to consider as well.
Actually, the assumptions were not absurd, so much as pure experimentation, in the form of what if the following. The following may or may not be true.
Enter x into the experiment and see what follows. We suppose x as it is presented to us.

[TinyTree]

Originally Posted by michellemfry Could I suggest that if the specific observer were to fail to observe, there would be obvious consequence? If the specific observer simply observed, there may be no fanfare or tah-dah. Simply fulfilling the purpose for which one was designed is simply functioning normally. The failure to observe by the specific observer would represent a breakdown in the process, a catastrophe. While the accomplishment of such an unlikely event as one observer and one observation is met with no discernable affect whatsoever. Yet, it is a rare and endangered event in the making. One observer and one observation. Now that is a pair that is as significant as A-T and G-C.

Yes, I agree that it would normally pan out as "business as usual", but in the case where that someone failed to look- it would be catastrophe. It would essentially unravel any part of the universe they did not look at until they looked at it again.

Strangely, for those individuals who were in "mixed quantum state" they would end up not existing until they were perceived again. That is, they would not exist in any real form. I am not sure if they would have a memory of "what happened during the nonexistent period". That is, for the Shrodinger cat- suppose it was a monkey or dog who could communicate where they were in that state (and suppose the consequence is less drastic than death- perhaps if they got a cookie or not). Would they perceive that they got the cookie towards the start of the experiment, even though it was not "resolved" until the end of the experiment? If so- they would never know that something was amiss with reality.

Of course, once that person died, then the universe would basically cease to exist. Therefore, it would be in everyones best interest to keep that individual alive.