Consciousness and the measurement problem.
Studies in history and philosophy of science February 1, 2026 DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102102 (opens in new tab) via PubMed
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractTwo approaches to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics are compared: the Consciousness Collapses Wave Function (CCWF) model and the London-Bauer-French (LBF) phenomenological framework. The CCWF model provides a mathematically defined collapse mechanism yielding experimentally testable predictions about collapse, but these tests do not establish that consciousness causes collapse. Despite this limitation, CCWF offers conceptual clarity. The LBF approach lacks such clarity because it remains dependent on standard quantum formalism. Significant challenges have been raised against key features of CCWF, but further arguments are needed to undermine its claim of testability regarding consciousness collapsing the wave function.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Consciousness Continuous spontaneous localization Integrated information theory Life-world Measurement problem |
| Key finding | Argues that the Consciousness Collapses Wave Function model provides a mathematically defined, testable collapse mechanism but does not establish consciousness as the cause of collapse, while the London-Bauer-French approach lacks conceptual clarity. |
Abstract
This paper examines two approaches to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, invoking the concept of consciousness and highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each. The first approach is the model proposed by David Chalmers and Kelvin McQueen, based on the idea of the Consciousness Collapses Wave Function (CCWF), originally attributed to John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner. The second approach is the phenomenological framework known as the London-Bauer-French (LBF) approach. We contend that significant challenges have been raised against key features of the CCWF model. However, these criticisms require further arguments to effectively undermine its most crucial claim: that the model can be tested to determine whether consciousness collapses the wave function. We will demonstrate that while CCWF offers a mathematically defined collapse mechanism that yields straightforward, experimentally testable predictions about collapse per se, these tests do not, by themselves, establish that consciousness is the cause of collapse. Nevertheless, despite this limitation, their model provides conceptual clarity in addressing the measurement problem, as it utilizes a mathematically defined collapse mechanism that offers a straightforward and testable solution. In contrast, the LBF approach lacks conceptual clarity regarding the measurement problem, as it continues to depend on the standard quantum formalism.