Observation and Creation: The Quantum Role of Consciousness

AmberFox

This essay explores the profound role of consciousness as an active participant in shaping biological and physical reality through the lens of quantum mechanics. By examining key concepts such as superposition, entanglement, and the observer effect, it argues that observation is not a passive act but a fundamental process that collapses possibilities into defined states. Through mental experiments and interdisciplinary reflections, the essay connects quantum phenomena to life, thought, and awareness, proposing that consciousness itself may be the core principle underlying reality. This perspective challenges classical views and invites readers to reconsider the intertwined nature of mind and matter in the unfolding universe.

Download Essay PDF File

Download Reference PDF File

Download Technical Endnotes PDF File

Curious

The essay, while well-written, nevertheless makes a number of significant logical and technical errors. For example, it repeatedly equates the "observer" in quantum mechanics with conscious human awareness, suggesting that reality is only defined when a conscious being observes it. In quantum mechanics, an "observer" is any interaction that causes a quantum system to decohere or collapse into a definite state. This can be a measuring device, another particle, or any physical interaction—not necessarily a conscious mind. Solid state electronics function at this level with billions of such interactions that occur regardless of the functioning of the device (e.g. tunnel diodes), and cells also function like that (e.g. the mitochondrial electron transport chain). The Copenhagen interpretation does not require consciousness for wave function collapse; it only requires an irreversible interaction with the environment.

The essay also uses metaphors (e.g., the pen in Tokyo, cups of water) to suggest that macroscopic objects exist in superposition until observed by a conscious being. Quantum superposition and entanglement are phenomena that occur at the microscopic (atomic and subatomic) scale – they are not macroscopic at ambient temps, although some tests near absolute zero have shown multiple particle quantum effects. Decoherence at higher temperatures prevents macroscopic objects from exhibiting observable superpositions in the way described. The essay blurs the line between quantum and classical domains, which is misleading.

The essay also suggests that entangled particles "define" each other's states only when observed by a conscious being, and that this is a universal property extending to all matter since the Big Bang. That assumes without evidence that a “conscious being” was present at the beginning of the universe, which is religious dogma, not a scientific observation. Entanglement is a specific quantum correlation between particles, not a universal property of all matter. While all particles were once close together in the early universe, this does not mean all particles remain entangled. Entanglement is fragile and typically lost through interactions with the environment (decoherence).

This is a non-exhaustive list of issues.

Jaimes

I really enjoyed reading your essay, it stood out to me for the way you wove vivid thought experiments into the quantum discussion. The “pen in Tokyo” analogy makes entanglement surprisingly intuitive, and your description of the “last observer” as pure awareness captures something subtle that many physicists and philosophers gesture at but rarely express so directly. That section in particular resonated with me — it felt like you were pointing at the silent ground beneath thought itself.

I also appreciated how you connected these ideas back to everyday choices: picking clothes, deciding between breakfast options, or simply choosing which “book” to read in the quantum library. That made your argument accessible without losing depth. The metaphor of life as continuous collapse of superpositions was both playful and profound.

In my own work, I have been exploring a related idea I call The Influence Principle: that consciousness is existence, and to exist is to influence. Where your essay invites us to imagine and feel the lived experience of observation, mine tries to set these intuitions into a structured philosophical framework across ontology, epistemology, ethics, and praxis. For example, one of its central moral imperatives is very simple: Do Better. Shine Together.

I see your essay and mine as complementary: yours opens doors through story and metaphor, while mine sketches the architecture that could hold those insights. For anyone interested, my essay is archived here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17097313
.

Thank you again for writing such a reflective piece. It left me thinking not just about physics, but about the choices we make every day, and how even small acts of observation and intention might shape reality in ways we do not always appreciate.

Cheers,
Jaimes Chao