The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per comments which identify this as substantially similar to the deleted consciousness causes collapse, and failing policy for all the same reasons. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement causes collapse[edit]

Measurement causes collapse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is a resurrection of Consciousness causes collapse, which was redirected to Quantum mysticism with intent to merge per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consciousness causes collapse a few days ago. All of its material is a copy-and-paste job from that article, Copenhagen interpretation, Schrödinger's cat, and Quantum Zeno effect. This article is bad for Wikipedia's organisation, since the article summarizing these ideas in the context of measurement causing collapse is exactly Copenhagen interpretation. This article amounts to a POV fork populated with original research. Melchoir (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the two articles and you'll see that Measurement Causes Collapse is focused on issues that go beyond consciousness, included is the quantum zeno effect, the copenhagen interpretation, and a lot of other details that focus on measurement. I think it's unfair to characterize this as a resurrection of CCC and then claim it's the Copenhagen intepretation at the same time.
Copy and paste job? Are you insinuating that there is special protection given to articles and that sections cannot be shared to create new articles? That is a very limited view of how articles are created and it presumes the hard work others have done can never be used to quickly cover topics relevant to another article.
This sounds like sour grapes to me.
Lordvolton (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can see how that appeared unfair. Let me restate the point:
  • This article was clearly created from Consciousness causes collapse. The first sentence of that article was ""Consciousness causes collapse" is the name given to a broadly controversial interpretation of quantum mechanics according to which observation by a conscious observer is causally associated with wave function collapse." The first sentence of this article is the same, except "broadly controversial" is deleted and "observation" is replaced with "measurement". The sections "Mysticism, New Age and New Thought belief", "Objections from physicists", and "Further links and references" are all preserved. This comes off as a simple attempt to evade process by shoehorning material where it doesn't belong. Right off the bat, the opening phrase "Measurement causes collapse" is a name given to... is unverifiable, for which see WP:V.
  • As for copying from other articles: there are many reasons why it is not good to duplicate content, but those are editorial and management issues beyond the scope of this AfD, which is theoretically about policy. Repeating all this material under the banner of the idea that "measurement by a conscious observer is causally associated with wave function collapse" is original research, for which see WP:NOR.
Melchoir (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a very important distinction between "measurement" and "consciousness". And I also believe that the CCC article didn't actually get into any of the details, instead focusing on Quantum Mysticism. I think you'll find that by focusing on measurement, and related issues, and not solely upon consciousness the reader can make up their own mind whether consciousness is required, rather than assuming for the reader that CCC is the case. To their credit, other editors have covered important ground that is relevant (uncertainty principle, etc.)
Proponents of CCC would certainly not want material in an article that states a collapse occurred and by measurement (later) you realized it. Which is precisely the kind of material included in the measurement causes collapse article, rather than a non-scientific approach to examining what we know to be a critical requirement: measurement.
How many physicists would argue against the statement, "Measurement causes collapse"? I would wager you'd find very few. Now ask the same group of physicists if "consciousness causes collapse" and you're likely to get a very different answer.
Which illustrates why I believe the distinction is not only important but an entirely different article altogether.
Lordvolton (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course there is an important distinction. (1) If one were to write an article about the idea that measurement (not consciousness) causes collapse, once would get Copenhagen interpretation. (2) If one were to write an article about the idea that consciousness causes collapse, one would get either Consciousness causes collapse or Quantum mysticism. Melchoir (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two possibilities among several. I believe it's a very complicated question. For example, a reader might conclude that measurement causes collapse but that a requirement of measurement is a conscious observer. Which then opens the floor to a debate on whether collapse occurs without an observer.
The philosophical riddle, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" comes to mind. Why does any of this matter? Well, there are a lot of fascinating subplots to this question. If measurement is required than there might be an efficiency argument which is how simulated worlds are created today. In computer generated worlds we only render what you can see and when a tree falls in a forest and there is no one around to hear it there is no sound, because that would be a waste of resources.
If we’re searching for existential clues… this is a great place to start.
Lordvolton (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...(3) If one were to write an article about how complicated a question "it" is, one would get Interpretation of quantum mechanics. But you can't just create your own interpretation on Wikipedia, per WP:NOR. Melchoir (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote another lengthy response to your most recent accusation on the discussion page of Measurement Causes Collapse. Some of those thoughts apply to this claim as well. The article speaks for itself and there is no evidence to support that it's my own interpretation.
That's patently false.
Lordvolton (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is, in fact, on you to provide evidence that the article is describing an idea reflected in the literature, per WP:V. Melchoir (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you interested in even more back and forth on this topic please visit the discussion section of the article in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Measurement_causes_collapse

Lordvolton (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_________

I submit that what you are separating is CCC and the act of measuring by a Conscious mind... but that is the same as a CCC is inherently measuring all things, contextualizing, spacializing, etc... therefore the act of measuring is already covered by CCC... am I wrong?--Pmedema (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thirdly, whether collapse occurs without measurement.
There are interesting conundrums within all of those concepts. I don't personally believe consciousness is required for collapse, but I do believe measurement causes collapse and that the folks who wish to promote "consciousness" as a requirement for collapse deserve more respect than they're getting from critics whose view of the world prevents them from allowing others to express alternative ideas.
Ideas with plenty of citations, for those critics who think it's not a scholarly endeavor.
It can be confusing because saying "measurement causes collapse" and "consciousness is required for measurement" is not the same thing as saying "consciousness causes collapse" because collapse may occur without measurement. And that's probably a point we need to clarify in the article.
Lordvolton (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lordvolton (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you're referring to links to our discussion then perhaps you shouldn't have your friend run off to the wikiprojects physics talk page looking for "consensus". I'm not saying you're his meatpuppet or vice-versa, but the two of you seem very eager to delete articles and campaign to accomplish those ends. I also believe some of your recent negativity is a result of my issues with your treatment of another user who came to you for assistance and ultimately received only ridicule. Lordvolton (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the concern about filling niches, there's always Copenhagen interpretation as well as -- as Colonel Warden rightly points out -- Measurement problem and Measurement in quantum mechanics. Managing these articles is a tough job that I wouldn't want to trivialize, and perhaps a new addition would help. But I really think that it should be less important to this particular AfD whether we desire to answer certain questions we have, and more important whether the stated goals of this particular article are in conflict with WP:V and WP:NOR. Melchoir (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: See my comments above. Another case of the pot calling the kettle black. Lordvolton (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is a rehash of material already present elsewhere, it is not a solution to the CCC problem. 1Z (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William if you have any sense of integrity you'll place the same "this user was canvassed" notice beneath Peter Jones. Or do you only want to complain about those who disagree? It turns out, contrary to your assumptions and accusations, that wikipedians have their own minds and the ability to exercise free will. Lordvolton (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LV, Peter Jones was canvassed by you, not William. The fact that even the people you have been approaching aren't entirely supporting you doesn't look very good for your argument. --BozMo talk 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was recently blocked by William for my comment above and I appealed the block which was quickly denied by BozMo, who it turns out is an editing pal of William's. And not surprisingly BozMo suddenly shows up here. Since I believe there is an abuse of administrative power occurring I would like to invite others to view my talk page which will corroborate my story.
Just for the record, if you check the time of the edits you will see that I found this page first (my previous edit was on another delete page) and went to Lordvolton's talk page to warn him about his incivility. I found he had already been blocked for it by WMC and endorsed it, after here. As for the "editing pal" bit I am not going to dignify it with any comment. --BozMo talk 08:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are the procedures for reporting William and BozMo? Lordvolton (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Others feel your sense of frustration with the previous article, this is taken from Nhall110608's page (see below). However, if your issue is simply with the the title of the article and not the content itself, then that isn't really addressing the issue raised here. Since they desire to delete the content.
I missed the original discussion, but the nature of the merger seems quire unjustified to me. There is basically no discussion at all of the original subject matter of consciousness causes collapse on Quantum Mysticism, (unlike Quantum mind, and Copenhagen interpretation. The reader is effectively being told that the subject is nonsense without being told why. That is not how good encyclopedias work. Some sort of merger might have been a good idea, but this is WP:POV and censorship.1Z (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree Peter Jones. I'm not exactly sure what we do about that though? Nhall0608 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lordvolton (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More