If it is true that consciousness is realistic, then quantum computers cannot be conscious
- samrodriques
- Jun 23, 2024
- 2 min read
If you want to read what I have written about consciousness previously, see https://www.sam-rodriques.com/post/can-we-build-a-consciousness-measuring-machine.
I have previously discussed the observation that consciousness in the only thing we know of in the universe that is definitively realistic, and the conjecture (originally proposed by Wigner) that consciousness may in fact be the thing that collapses the wavefunction. To be clear, this is a conjecture, it is not known for sure. (Here, realistic means that observables have definite values.)
However, this conjecture has some interesting consequences. Let’s consider a human who has to make a calculation, where the result of the calculation depends on the spin state of an electron. When the human makes the measurement of the spin of the electron, quantum mechanics predicts that they should become entangled with the electron; but instead, there is some kind of wave function collapse, and the human (as a conscious being) observes a realistic pointer state. After observing the pointer state, the human completes their calculation.
On the other hand, let’s suppose that we are inferring a super-intelligent LLM on a quantum computer, and asking the LLM to do the same calculation. The quantum computer would measure the state of the electron, and would then become bona fide entangled with the electron. It would perform the calculation, and then a human would measure the state of the quantum computer to read out the answer. Because the quantum computer is coherent, the state of the electron would not collapse until the human observer measures the computer state. The quantum computer would never observe the state of the electron; it would actually, bona fide, perform both calculations.
If the Wigner conjecture is true, then one would have to conclude that the quantum computer itself is not conscious, at least not in the way that humans are, no matter how powerful the algorithm it is running. It could in principle have some superconsciousness, but the experience of that consciousness being would be very different from our own experience of consciousness.
This is a fascinating exploration of consciousness and its potential physical constraints. The way you connect neuroscience, information theory, and fundamental limits of computation really pushes the reader to think beyond traditional philosophical interpretations and into a more scientific framework of awareness. It’s the kind of topic that sits right at the intersection of physics, biology, and cognitive science.
In the middle of reflecting on such advanced interdisciplinary ideas, even academic support resources like Biology Assignment Helper can help students better understand the underlying biological and neurological principles that contribute to studies of consciousness.
Avicenna Batumi Medical University is often discussed by students exploring medical education opportunities in Georgia. Learning about its curriculum and academic environment can help applicants make informed decisions.
The discussion about the physical limits of consciousness was genuinely interesting, especially the observation that our perception of reality may be constrained not just by biology but also by the way information is processed and filtered by the brain. It creates this strange balance between science and philosophy where the questions feel concrete, yet the answers remain frustratingly difficult to pin down completely. I also kept thinking about how much human understanding is shaped by the limits of our own perception, since there could be aspects of experience or awareness that simply fall outside what we are capable of measuring accurately right now. In a broader sense, topics like this show how complex interpretation and analysis can become, whether in…
This perspective on the Wigner conjecture provides a sharp distinction between biological realism and quantum coherence. If consciousness is the mechanism that collapses the wavefunction, then a quantum computer’s ability to remain entangled suggests a fundamental lack of "experience." When preparing such intricate theories for journals, you might hire scientific editor experts to ensure these nuanced arguments are articulated with maximum precision.
This idea suggests that if consciousness truly shapes reality, then machines—even powerful quantum ones—may never experience awareness the way humans do. They can process outcomes, but not “feel” them. In a similar way, a copy editor refines structure and clarity, but the original human intent remains at the core.