This is not an easy question kenneth1982-ga
Most physicists,
even that small percentage
which deals with Quantum Mechanics in their daily work,
do not think about this, and do not have an opinion.
It is something, a philosophical issue, which they recall as a fringe
issue mentioned in introductory course of QM. Interpretation does not
affect most of the choices, selection of equations or of
computation carried out by an applied physicist (which is a large
majority of physics professionals, these days).
When pressed, most would, I guess, subscribe to Copenhagen
Interpretation (Bohr's view).
Copenhagen Interpretation does not imply that conciousnesses,
(whatever that is) plays a special role. It however allows that option.
Majority of those who are interested in the issue, I guess 90% of
them, would invoke Paradox of 'Wigner's friend' as an counter
argument and guess that irreversible processes involved in
amplification of microevent, when producing an macroscopic reading,
are the cause of the collapse.
I found one poll on closely related issue, which can support these guesses:
"...The results reveal a full spectrum of positions. A handful of
people were fellow travellers of Weinberg and Gell-Mann, including the
person who called the poll "a trap for the unwary" and the physicist
who archly informed me that "in the last 40 years, [you] philosophers
still have not found a way to ask a physicist a 'real' question".
Each, with admirable consistency, returned the poll conspicuously
blank. The person who wrote that "a scientist who is not a realist is
either lying or incompetent" was a realist fundamentalist.
.........
........
A few people said they were operationalists or constructivists, but
most who explicitly labelled themselves said they were realists. What
I learned from the poll was that it was difficult to tell from
people's answers what kind of position they adhered to..".
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/4/2
This poll was more general then your question, (asking which interpretation
they prefer) but this conclusion, I think, applies to your question as well:
"..Still more significantly, a large fraction of respondents cannot be
classified as critical realists because they recognized, while
answering the poll, that their answers were philosophically
indeterminate. Indeed, the most heart-warming letter I received said:
"At the end of [your original] article, you said that a low response
will indicate either that you have no readership or that scientists
don't care about the issues raised. After 48 hours of discussions we
have to suggest a third category - those who would like to reply but
in attempting to answer the questionnaire have found their 'gut'
philosophical position to be wholly inadequate and inconsistent." Her
poll, too, was blank - but it seemed a product of a sensitivity to the
seriousness and significance of philosophical issues rather than a
repudiation of them..."
So, in conclusion, I (Hedgie) guess is that of those who would respond
to a poll posed by your question, and respons with a clear
(determinate yes or no) 5% would believe that conciousnesses plays a
role, and of those, 90% would
subscribe to views of Penrose
http://www.friesian.com/penrose.htm
which however can be classified as subcategory of the view that
irreversible process involves in amplification of microevent ..
are responsible.
Hedgie
PS I doubt that the answers would in anyway corellate with belief
in creationism as eyapha-ga suggests. It is very hard for anyone who
understands carbon dating techniques to take creationism seriously. |
