Pevaquark said:"Because actual experiments show nothing about the soul or consciousness. It’s only in thought experiments and the interpretation of QM that any of this appears. "
Not true Pevaquark. I pointed you to Proietti et al. They specifically cite F and R’s paper as one that influenced the design of their experiment and their experiment supports the problem.
I will go over F and R again, then I gotta go eat and go to a small group of our Church.
F&R’s title says it all. Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself.
Who uses quantum? quantum physicists are the only ones who do it and they do it mostly by mental effort. My cat certainly has never shown an interest in quantum calculations, so I feel safe saying that those who use quantum are humans and they are using their minds to calculate the result. F&R show that different observers in their theory will NOT see the same results of the same experiment. They will contradict each other. Proietti et al’s experiment says the same thing–they experimentally saw the contradictions F&R predicted.
Now, F&R want to know where the problem is. They say the problems lie in the assumptions that went into their calculations. And this is a normal place to look for where the issue is. The listed 3 assumption that need to be examined. I won’t do them in the same order they did.
1 Assumption S. If they give up the idea that different people can only see the same results from the same experiment, then the problem is solved because their people saw different results while observing the same things. But the problem with giving that up, is that our experience NEVER has me see spin up and you see spin down for the same electron. Thus, giving up this assumption so they can be consistent with their predicted contradictions, means that they don’t match reality–cause we don’t live in that kind of universe.
Assumption 2 consistency. This is logical consistency. It means we don’t believe 1 equals 2. or dogs are cats, or fish are elephants. If we give this up, then mathematics fails and since again, we know mathematics works, giving up this assumption means that they would again NOT match reality. Proietti et al give up consistency so they can keep assumption 3 below, but in doing so, to make it match reality Proietti et al assume there is a privileged observer sitting above the multiverse straightening out all the inconsistencies. That is theology!
Assumption 3 universal validity of quantum theory. This means that quantum theory applies to everything in this universe–no exceptions. and that would mean consciousness can’t be excepted and it must obey the laws of quantum. The conundrum for F and R is that this is the only easy assumption they can dump. F&R state:
" Here, we have shown that Assumptions (Q) and (S) are already problematic by themselves, in the sense that agents who use these assumptions to reason about each other as in Fig.  will arrive at inconsistent conclusions "
According to this you can believe that everyone in the world sees multiple quantum events–that is they see the mixed state (yet experience tells us that is false), or you can say quantum is not universally applicable and doesn’t apply to consciousness. Take your pick. In my mind the first choice would make me sound delusional. The second choice is the one I have defended here.
and if quantum is not universal and isn’t applicable to consciousness, then, well, consciousness can’t arise from the quantum mechanical operations in the brain.
If that doesn’t suffice, I don’t know anything that will help. Im off to eat and go to small group tonight. Might be on briefly tomorrow morning.
Edited to add: let me say it this way. Quantum will model a person using quantum IF and only if you are will to say that when people look at the same experiment they see different results almost every time. Since that doesn’t happen, it seems to me that the only logical/rational option is to say consciousness isn’t subject to quantum laws.