>>13419553>So do rocks have any amount of consciousness that allows them to measure in any way?>>13419558>Do you have to be conscious in order to measure?No, you don't. The measurement is actually the interaction between a microscopical particle (which exhibits quantum properties) and a macroscopic environment such as a measurement device: when the two interact, the particle loses coherence and it "collapses" into one of its possible states. At least, this is according to the coherence interpretation of QM, which I think is pretty likely and surely more believable than the classical Copenhagen interpretation. I'm not an expert in the recent developments of quantum optics however, so I am not sure if this interpretation is fully agreed upon by scientists. What I am sure they agree upon is that consciousness is not a requirement for measurement.
>>13419593>You can come back later and see the data. You heard about Schrodinger's cat? Well the data will have all possible outcomes in it until you check that data itself, and then the data will collapse into one set of data. So your harddrive before reading off that data will be in superposition with all possible data sets, crazy isn't it?That's not really true, Schrödinger's cat was just a paradox that he proposed to question the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. In reality, the moment the particle interacts with the poison it loses coherence and becomes a classical phenomenon thanks to the interaction between micro and macroscopic objects. Therefore, even if there is no person to check the data, the cat will either be alive or dead, but not in a superposition.
