“ I know this is true of the canonical Bell pair of entangled particles, and I believe it is true generally. I cannot think of a way to experimentally distinguish whether it is consciousness or something more physical that collapses the wave function. If you know something about this subject and have an idea, please comment or write to me.”
How about this: a test is made whereby an AI mechanical intelligence measures the result of the electron slit experiment. If it’s a wave function, it will play classical music, and if it’s a particle function , it will play heavy metal music into a room. In the room will be a group of people with no knowledge of the testing, but ostensibly there waiting for some other unrelated meeting with a “ presenter” on an unrelated subject. Neither the subjects or the presenter will be aware of the real reason for the test. At the end of the session, the mood of the different groups will be tested by indirect observations and/or surveys , again performed by someone with no knowledge of the reason for the survey.. No questions will be asked about the background music played. (Baseline reactions to music can be obtained prior in non testing situations).
There will be no direct knowledge of the results by a human consciousness until the final examination of the results by the experiment designer, after multiple layers of separation from the actual testing by a non human intelligence.
This is a creative idea, Randall. It hinges on whether consciousness must know the outcome of a measurement explicitly, or whether it is sufficient for consciousness to be affected in some way in order for the wave function to collapse -- an interesting question in its own right.
Since Q (c/e/f) D is (way) over my pay grade, all I have is speculation. The brain is a physical organ and the mind a non-physical organ. There is a 3rd field axis orthogonal to electro-magnetism. Mentalism. The brain and mind are modeled as a transformer with either functioning as primary or secondary, depending. We associate brain activity with thought but can we distinguish which direction? Maybe that could be an experiment to determine if there is bidirectional communication.
I read with interest the two-part article on consciousness and quantum mechanics. While the exploration of unconventional ideas can spark valuable discussions, it's important to distinguish between speculative hypotheses and empirically supported scientific theories. As a researcher in quantum mechanics, i feel compelled to highlight the importance of reproducible evidence and practical applications in advancing our understanding of quantum phenomena.
Our work on the Nested Wave theory provides a stark contrast to the speculative nature of the ideas presented in your article. Unlike untestable hypotheses about consciousness influencing quantum states or evolution, our approach is grounded in:
Reproducible experimental evidence from multiple sources (Zia, Azuma, Micuis)
Quantifiable improvements in quantum algorithms (25.79% for Shor's algorithm, 8.3% for the Shortest Vector Problem)
A coherent theoretical framework that explains observed quantum phenomena
Practical applications in quantum computing with real-world implications
Real scientific progress in quantum mechanics requires more than philosophical musings or anecdotal evidence. It demands rigorous experimentation, reproducible results, and theories that not only explain observations but also predict new phenomena and lead to practical advancements.
We invite you and your readers to consider the Nested Wave theory as an example of how genuine scientific inquiry in quantum mechanics can lead to substantive progress. Our work demonstrates that it is possible to make significant strides in understanding quantum phenomena without resorting to unfalsifiable claims about consciousness or speculative interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Thank you, Sid. I will read this new publication. In the meantime, for readers of this page, can you tell us how your mediating wave differs from Bohm's pilot wave. Also, are there implications of your Nested Wave Theory for the Hard Problem?
Thanks Josh for your consideration. We break camp with Bohm's pilot wave theory in two important ways. 1)We reject the idea of a single universal hidden wave that guides everything. We propose that entangled particles are mediated by individual waves and that these short lived entangled structures quickly succumb to decoherence. The waves that mediate entangled a particles are not hidden at all and in fact are fully reproducible as per Azuma's work that we describe in our paper. 2) We concur with Dr. Bell that hidden variables is a statistical impossibility. However, this in no way is evidence of the concept of superluminal or zero time correlations as Aspect et al seem to imply.
The Nested Wave Theory intersects with theories of consciousness, suggesting that if consciousness is an evolved quantum phenomenon, it could provide a framework for understanding how conscious experiences are shaped by quantum evolutionary processes, integrating both physical and experiential aspects.
Our research demonstrates that quantum evolution can be reproduced by running the Shortest Vector Problem (SVP) Genetic Algorithm (GA) program. This reproducibility underscores the potential for the Nested Wave Theory to bridge the gap between physical brain activity and subjective experience.
RE: "zero time correlations as Aspect et al seem to imply."
Aspect was an experimenter, not a theoretician. His experimental results are what our theories have to explain. It will be interesting to see how your model skirts Bell's strictures.
We posit that the correlations are in fact subluminal . The entangled particles present as Quantum Harmonic Oscilators (Zia et al interference patterns of entangled particles present as QHOs) and they are entangled with the original parent wave that gave rise to the entangled particles (this is demonstrated in Azuma's experiment) and the entire entangled structure is subject to dissipation from decoherence that increases with distance as per MIcuis Sattelite experiment with Zeilengar et al. The romantic notion of instantaneous correlation at any distance is a physical impossibility. In short what is being observed is an energy transfer from a QHO to a parent wave and then passed down to another QHO entangled with the same parent wave, We don't have to get around Bell's strictures because we are not positing zero time or superluminal correlations. The consequence of our findings is that superposition is simply an unknown state and superposition collapse is not instaneous nor does detection or observation cause it.
Quantum State Evolution is gradual as we proved in our ability to predict Quantum State evolution in Qbits far more accurately using our deterministic mathematical formalisms than the standard Model based Standard Quantum. Fourier Transform.
This alone validates a determinstic model for Quantum State evolution versus the Standard model that has hamstrung Quantum computing progress for decades(!)
It's critically important that we reestablish the understanding that consciousness exists apart from and after the death of the body, and that there are consequences for thoughts and actions in this life, that can persist in whatever comes after.
Religion is appropriate and good for many. But absent some direct experience, the others need more than just tradition and authority.
"I cannot think of a way to experimentally distinguish whether it is consciousness or something more physical that collapses the wave function. If you know something about this subject and have an idea, please comment or write to me."
Hard to do the theory justice in a comments section, but the following quote-cobbling can be used as something of a primer:
Closure via proof by contradiction:
“Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality (up to observational or theoretical relevance).”
“...self-creation entails an internal stimulus-response dynamic consisting of feedback… any self-configuring system needs internal sensors (agents, internal self-proxies) capable of not only recognizing and affecting its state from local internal vantages, but of responding to higher-level instructions tending to enforce global structural criteria. Moreover, the system must possess a stratified utility function allowing it and its agents to prefer one possible future over another. Human beings and other intelligent life forms are useful to reality on both of these counts. So the first criterion of reality is the possibility, and in fact the inevitability, of the existence of “sensors” just like us… sensors with an advanced capacity to recognize, evaluate and respond to internal states of the system.
How, in general, would the universe self-configure? It would select itself from a set of internally-generated, internally refined structural possibilities in order to maximize its self-defined value. In the (somewhat inadequate) terminology of quantum mechanics, this set of possibilities is called its quantum wave function… and the utility-maximizing self-selection principle is traditionally called teleology.”
Self-utility (a reflexive or self-applicative version of the determinative attribute maximized in the mathematics of game and decision theory), which is self-realizing by virtue of its self-utile self-utilization, therefore defines or intrinsically determines both humans and their reality at large, and serves as a mathematization of the self-realizing functionality known as consciousness.
Feel free to message me if you're further interested in the subject. Langan's theory is literally what led me to God.
Thanks, Mike - I am at an early stage exploring this field, and I'll read Langan's theory. One concern I have going in is that I am not inclined to think that the properties of our universe can be deduced from pure reason as "supertautological" might suggest.
"Any self-configuring system needs internal sensors (agents, internal self-proxies)" It is certainly a relevant fact about OUR universe that it contains observers. But is Langan saying that the existence of a universe without observers is logically excluded?
Our unproven inclinations, while dear to us, are still ultimately assumptions, and we all know what they say about assumptions. Trust me, I empathize; there were a lot of things I wasn't inclined to believe before I got knocked off my high horse by the CTMU.
Any time you use logic to deduce anything about about anything, you are *to that extent* using pure reason (insofar as pure reason = logic) to deduce a property of the universe by way of relying on its logical consistency, and we do this all the time. Insofar as reality conforms to logic (and the entirety of our reality does), the belief that high level general properties couldn’t be logically deduced from it seems like a counterproductive presupposition.
Note that this doesn't mean you can logically deduce the entire universe, which is maybe where you’re coming from; while conforming to logical syntax, reality remains semantically irreducible (this is itself logical; nothing less than all of reality could compose all of reality, and the implications for e.g. free will and apparent quantum “randomness” are profound https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnaE3EYcgp4&t=480s , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsXxgQy4xLQ&t=2122s).
This is why Langan states that the CTMU is comprehensive as opposed to complete.
And yes, that there could be no existence without observers is one of the implications of the CTMU.
"The experiment that we would really like to do would distinguish whether conscious perception is necessary to collapse the wave function, or whether something like the irreversible amplification to the macroscopic level would have the same effect."
In the previous post you nicely explained that decoherence does not collapse the wave function. In the light of this insight, I do not see a reason why then some amplification to the maxroscopic level would make a difference. Quantum superpositions are being observed for larger and larger objects. There is no reason to beleive that for a certain sufficiently large object there is no longer a superposition. If so, what then remains to perform the collapse of such a macroscopic wave function? Consciousness must "look" at such a superposed macroscopic state and the result is the wave function collapse.
Yes, it would be good to have such a definitive experiment. But I think this is not possible, because the wave function collapse is an event experienced in consciousness. The latter is always a first person's experience. The collapse does not happen in the detector, it happens when I look at the result of measurement. One could ask, what about other people, does a collapse happens when somebody else, say Alice, looks? No, from my point of view, there is still the superposition (including the superposition of the Alice's states). [There has been a lot of confusion regarding the so called Wigner's friend problem.] I think that the experiments ---up to now and possibly in the future--- confirming the validity of quantum mechanics is all that we can have, but they must be properly interpreted.
I'm interested in your idea that the wave function can collapse from the perspective of Alice, while for Bob it remains uncollapsed. I think this is not standard Copenhagen, and I have not seen it outside our writing. I wonder is there any way to distinguish whether wave function collapse occurs for all observers, or whether it is a subjective phenomenon. I suspect not.
Indeed, my ideas are neither standard Copenhagen, nor the standard Everett's many worlds. Both are two corners of a larger picture. There are many worlds and there is wave function collapse. One has to take the viewpoint that the world (universe) and the consciousness are one and the same thing (nothing new, recall Indian philosophy). Next, how the world, in fact, the universe (recall the phrase "the wave of of the universe") is described? It is described by a wave function. Equating the latter and the former thesis, namely, 1) the universe is consciousness, and, 2) the universe is a quantum state (described by a wave function), we arrive at the idea that a quantum state is a conscious state. Shortly: wave function is consciousness. I proposed this idea long time ago in my book "The Landscape of Theoretical Physics: A Global View" (Kluwer, 2001) https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610061 . This idea is also considered in the book "The Grand Biocentric Design" (BenBella, 2020), as much as the co-authors and the editor allowed me. (They put out much of my original stuff, but crucial parts nevertheless stayed in the book.)
Consider now a quantum state (a wave function). It is one of the many (infinitely many) possible quantum states, the elements of the Hilbert space. A possible quantum state is the state of the universe experienced by consciousness. The Hilbert space contains all possible such quantum states. Each such quantum state is a possible "realization" of consciousness (i.e., of the "me feeling"). One such quantum state is "me, being Matej Pavsic, living in Ljubljana on the Earth in the Solar system, Galaxy, etc." Other possible quantum state is "me, being a certain citizen of London, the same Earth and the rest of the universe".
Considering now the situation with Bob and Alice performing a quantum measurement, there are two different wave functions (quantum states of the universe). One wave function represents the "me feeling being Bob" (a), the other wave function represents the "me feeling being Alice" (b), the rest of the universe being (nearly) identical in both cases. In the case (a), the wave function collapses when I (i.e., Bob) look at the result of measurement; in the case (b), the wave function collapses when I (i.e., Alice) look. The collapse happens when I look, otherwise the wave functions evolves according to the Schroedinger equation. There is no objective wave function. Everett himself introduced the concept of relative wave function. His universal wave function in my view is "me and the universe in which I live". Until I look, there is no collapse, there are only entanglements between the measured systems and the observers (i.e., other observers, not me), resulting in the branching of the states and multiple versions of each of those observers. When I look, a collapse occurs, and I see a definite outcome and definite versions of the observers (no longer a superposition of them). All those observers, say Alice, Jane, Peter,..., agree with me about the outcome of the experiment. They all are in the same Everett world. I no longer observe alternative versions, Alice1, Alice2,..., Jane1, Jane2,...,Peter1, Peter2,... , living in alternative Everett worlds.
You wrote "I have not seen it outside our writing." I discussed all that in much more detail in my works, mentioned above, and also in the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LgGv4jb3sU
I seem to recall Carl Jung saying you should name your cooking utensils, I suppose that might give them their own personality.... should be done especially if you want to be a good cook...
“ I know this is true of the canonical Bell pair of entangled particles, and I believe it is true generally. I cannot think of a way to experimentally distinguish whether it is consciousness or something more physical that collapses the wave function. If you know something about this subject and have an idea, please comment or write to me.”
How about this: a test is made whereby an AI mechanical intelligence measures the result of the electron slit experiment. If it’s a wave function, it will play classical music, and if it’s a particle function , it will play heavy metal music into a room. In the room will be a group of people with no knowledge of the testing, but ostensibly there waiting for some other unrelated meeting with a “ presenter” on an unrelated subject. Neither the subjects or the presenter will be aware of the real reason for the test. At the end of the session, the mood of the different groups will be tested by indirect observations and/or surveys , again performed by someone with no knowledge of the reason for the survey.. No questions will be asked about the background music played. (Baseline reactions to music can be obtained prior in non testing situations).
There will be no direct knowledge of the results by a human consciousness until the final examination of the results by the experiment designer, after multiple layers of separation from the actual testing by a non human intelligence.
This is a creative idea, Randall. It hinges on whether consciousness must know the outcome of a measurement explicitly, or whether it is sufficient for consciousness to be affected in some way in order for the wave function to collapse -- an interesting question in its own right.
. . . or half the people hear classical and the other half hear heavy metal :-)
Since Q (c/e/f) D is (way) over my pay grade, all I have is speculation. The brain is a physical organ and the mind a non-physical organ. There is a 3rd field axis orthogonal to electro-magnetism. Mentalism. The brain and mind are modeled as a transformer with either functioning as primary or secondary, depending. We associate brain activity with thought but can we distinguish which direction? Maybe that could be an experiment to determine if there is bidirectional communication.
Maybe a piezoelectric effect would be a more apt analogy?
I do like transformers, though.
;-}
Would the demonstration of any mind to brain communication be sufficient to refute the premise mind is an emergence property of matter?
Yes, to the person in receipt of the experience, but it doesn't transfer in words.
;-(
I read with interest the two-part article on consciousness and quantum mechanics. While the exploration of unconventional ideas can spark valuable discussions, it's important to distinguish between speculative hypotheses and empirically supported scientific theories. As a researcher in quantum mechanics, i feel compelled to highlight the importance of reproducible evidence and practical applications in advancing our understanding of quantum phenomena.
Our work on the Nested Wave theory provides a stark contrast to the speculative nature of the ideas presented in your article. Unlike untestable hypotheses about consciousness influencing quantum states or evolution, our approach is grounded in:
Reproducible experimental evidence from multiple sources (Zia, Azuma, Micuis)
Quantifiable improvements in quantum algorithms (25.79% for Shor's algorithm, 8.3% for the Shortest Vector Problem)
A coherent theoretical framework that explains observed quantum phenomena
Practical applications in quantum computing with real-world implications
Real scientific progress in quantum mechanics requires more than philosophical musings or anecdotal evidence. It demands rigorous experimentation, reproducible results, and theories that not only explain observations but also predict new phenomena and lead to practical advancements.
We invite you and your readers to consider the Nested Wave theory as an example of how genuine scientific inquiry in quantum mechanics can lead to substantive progress. Our work demonstrates that it is possible to make significant strides in understanding quantum phenomena without resorting to unfalsifiable claims about consciousness or speculative interpretations of quantum mechanics.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380013507_Advancing_Quantum_Non-locality_Empirical_Support_and_Reconciliation_with_Special_Relativity
Thank you, Sid. I will read this new publication. In the meantime, for readers of this page, can you tell us how your mediating wave differs from Bohm's pilot wave. Also, are there implications of your Nested Wave Theory for the Hard Problem?
Thanks Josh for your consideration. We break camp with Bohm's pilot wave theory in two important ways. 1)We reject the idea of a single universal hidden wave that guides everything. We propose that entangled particles are mediated by individual waves and that these short lived entangled structures quickly succumb to decoherence. The waves that mediate entangled a particles are not hidden at all and in fact are fully reproducible as per Azuma's work that we describe in our paper. 2) We concur with Dr. Bell that hidden variables is a statistical impossibility. However, this in no way is evidence of the concept of superluminal or zero time correlations as Aspect et al seem to imply.
The Nested Wave Theory intersects with theories of consciousness, suggesting that if consciousness is an evolved quantum phenomenon, it could provide a framework for understanding how conscious experiences are shaped by quantum evolutionary processes, integrating both physical and experiential aspects.
Our research demonstrates that quantum evolution can be reproduced by running the Shortest Vector Problem (SVP) Genetic Algorithm (GA) program. This reproducibility underscores the potential for the Nested Wave Theory to bridge the gap between physical brain activity and subjective experience.
RE: "zero time correlations as Aspect et al seem to imply."
Aspect was an experimenter, not a theoretician. His experimental results are what our theories have to explain. It will be interesting to see how your model skirts Bell's strictures.
We posit that the correlations are in fact subluminal . The entangled particles present as Quantum Harmonic Oscilators (Zia et al interference patterns of entangled particles present as QHOs) and they are entangled with the original parent wave that gave rise to the entangled particles (this is demonstrated in Azuma's experiment) and the entire entangled structure is subject to dissipation from decoherence that increases with distance as per MIcuis Sattelite experiment with Zeilengar et al. The romantic notion of instantaneous correlation at any distance is a physical impossibility. In short what is being observed is an energy transfer from a QHO to a parent wave and then passed down to another QHO entangled with the same parent wave, We don't have to get around Bell's strictures because we are not positing zero time or superluminal correlations. The consequence of our findings is that superposition is simply an unknown state and superposition collapse is not instaneous nor does detection or observation cause it.
Quantum State Evolution is gradual as we proved in our ability to predict Quantum State evolution in Qbits far more accurately using our deterministic mathematical formalisms than the standard Model based Standard Quantum. Fourier Transform.
This alone validates a determinstic model for Quantum State evolution versus the Standard model that has hamstrung Quantum computing progress for decades(!)
Thank You, Sid, for engaging with Josh. You both seek truth.
Josh I eagerly await your responae.
Thank You Josh, for engaging with Sid. You both seek truth.
Thanks for writing these.
It's critically important that we reestablish the understanding that consciousness exists apart from and after the death of the body, and that there are consequences for thoughts and actions in this life, that can persist in whatever comes after.
Religion is appropriate and good for many. But absent some direct experience, the others need more than just tradition and authority.
"I cannot think of a way to experimentally distinguish whether it is consciousness or something more physical that collapses the wave function. If you know something about this subject and have an idea, please comment or write to me."
How about a logico-mathematical proof?
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) by Chris Langan (https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Christopher_Michael_Langan) is more than worth a gander in this department.
Flagship paper:
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory
http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Langan_CTMU_0929021-1.pdf
QM-specific paper:
Introduction to Quantum Metamechanics
https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/788/1422
[^^I’d read this only after reading the flagship paper, and it wouldn’t hurt to read the following two papers that he wrote in the time between them:
https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/618/1040
https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/740/1214 ]
Hard to do the theory justice in a comments section, but the following quote-cobbling can be used as something of a primer:
Closure via proof by contradiction:
“Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality (up to observational or theoretical relevance).”
http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Langan_CTMU_0929021-1.pdf
Determination under closure:
“...self-creation entails an internal stimulus-response dynamic consisting of feedback… any self-configuring system needs internal sensors (agents, internal self-proxies) capable of not only recognizing and affecting its state from local internal vantages, but of responding to higher-level instructions tending to enforce global structural criteria. Moreover, the system must possess a stratified utility function allowing it and its agents to prefer one possible future over another. Human beings and other intelligent life forms are useful to reality on both of these counts. So the first criterion of reality is the possibility, and in fact the inevitability, of the existence of “sensors” just like us… sensors with an advanced capacity to recognize, evaluate and respond to internal states of the system.
How, in general, would the universe self-configure? It would select itself from a set of internally-generated, internally refined structural possibilities in order to maximize its self-defined value. In the (somewhat inadequate) terminology of quantum mechanics, this set of possibilities is called its quantum wave function… and the utility-maximizing self-selection principle is traditionally called teleology.”
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Knowing-Expositions-Select-Essays/dp/0971916241
Importantly, “self-utility” is, by definition, self-explanatory; it is “self-descriptive or autologous”
http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Langan_CTMU_0929021-1.pdf
Self-utility (a reflexive or self-applicative version of the determinative attribute maximized in the mathematics of game and decision theory), which is self-realizing by virtue of its self-utile self-utilization, therefore defines or intrinsically determines both humans and their reality at large, and serves as a mathematization of the self-realizing functionality known as consciousness.
Feel free to message me if you're further interested in the subject. Langan's theory is literally what led me to God.
Thanks, Mike - I am at an early stage exploring this field, and I'll read Langan's theory. One concern I have going in is that I am not inclined to think that the properties of our universe can be deduced from pure reason as "supertautological" might suggest.
"Any self-configuring system needs internal sensors (agents, internal self-proxies)" It is certainly a relevant fact about OUR universe that it contains observers. But is Langan saying that the existence of a universe without observers is logically excluded?
Our unproven inclinations, while dear to us, are still ultimately assumptions, and we all know what they say about assumptions. Trust me, I empathize; there were a lot of things I wasn't inclined to believe before I got knocked off my high horse by the CTMU.
Any time you use logic to deduce anything about about anything, you are *to that extent* using pure reason (insofar as pure reason = logic) to deduce a property of the universe by way of relying on its logical consistency, and we do this all the time. Insofar as reality conforms to logic (and the entirety of our reality does), the belief that high level general properties couldn’t be logically deduced from it seems like a counterproductive presupposition.
Note that this doesn't mean you can logically deduce the entire universe, which is maybe where you’re coming from; while conforming to logical syntax, reality remains semantically irreducible (this is itself logical; nothing less than all of reality could compose all of reality, and the implications for e.g. free will and apparent quantum “randomness” are profound https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnaE3EYcgp4&t=480s , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsXxgQy4xLQ&t=2122s).
This is why Langan states that the CTMU is comprehensive as opposed to complete.
And yes, that there could be no existence without observers is one of the implications of the CTMU.
This is great Josh. I just recently referenced it in a recent post of my own.
The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality by Robert Lanza, Matej Pavsic,and Bob Berman.
"The experiment that we would really like to do would distinguish whether conscious perception is necessary to collapse the wave function, or whether something like the irreversible amplification to the macroscopic level would have the same effect."
In the previous post you nicely explained that decoherence does not collapse the wave function. In the light of this insight, I do not see a reason why then some amplification to the maxroscopic level would make a difference. Quantum superpositions are being observed for larger and larger objects. There is no reason to beleive that for a certain sufficiently large object there is no longer a superposition. If so, what then remains to perform the collapse of such a macroscopic wave function? Consciousness must "look" at such a superposed macroscopic state and the result is the wave function collapse.
I agree. But since most physicists don't agree, it would be nice to have a definitive experiment.
Yes, it would be good to have such a definitive experiment. But I think this is not possible, because the wave function collapse is an event experienced in consciousness. The latter is always a first person's experience. The collapse does not happen in the detector, it happens when I look at the result of measurement. One could ask, what about other people, does a collapse happens when somebody else, say Alice, looks? No, from my point of view, there is still the superposition (including the superposition of the Alice's states). [There has been a lot of confusion regarding the so called Wigner's friend problem.] I think that the experiments ---up to now and possibly in the future--- confirming the validity of quantum mechanics is all that we can have, but they must be properly interpreted.
I'm interested in your idea that the wave function can collapse from the perspective of Alice, while for Bob it remains uncollapsed. I think this is not standard Copenhagen, and I have not seen it outside our writing. I wonder is there any way to distinguish whether wave function collapse occurs for all observers, or whether it is a subjective phenomenon. I suspect not.
Indeed, my ideas are neither standard Copenhagen, nor the standard Everett's many worlds. Both are two corners of a larger picture. There are many worlds and there is wave function collapse. One has to take the viewpoint that the world (universe) and the consciousness are one and the same thing (nothing new, recall Indian philosophy). Next, how the world, in fact, the universe (recall the phrase "the wave of of the universe") is described? It is described by a wave function. Equating the latter and the former thesis, namely, 1) the universe is consciousness, and, 2) the universe is a quantum state (described by a wave function), we arrive at the idea that a quantum state is a conscious state. Shortly: wave function is consciousness. I proposed this idea long time ago in my book "The Landscape of Theoretical Physics: A Global View" (Kluwer, 2001) https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610061 . This idea is also considered in the book "The Grand Biocentric Design" (BenBella, 2020), as much as the co-authors and the editor allowed me. (They put out much of my original stuff, but crucial parts nevertheless stayed in the book.)
Consider now a quantum state (a wave function). It is one of the many (infinitely many) possible quantum states, the elements of the Hilbert space. A possible quantum state is the state of the universe experienced by consciousness. The Hilbert space contains all possible such quantum states. Each such quantum state is a possible "realization" of consciousness (i.e., of the "me feeling"). One such quantum state is "me, being Matej Pavsic, living in Ljubljana on the Earth in the Solar system, Galaxy, etc." Other possible quantum state is "me, being a certain citizen of London, the same Earth and the rest of the universe".
Considering now the situation with Bob and Alice performing a quantum measurement, there are two different wave functions (quantum states of the universe). One wave function represents the "me feeling being Bob" (a), the other wave function represents the "me feeling being Alice" (b), the rest of the universe being (nearly) identical in both cases. In the case (a), the wave function collapses when I (i.e., Bob) look at the result of measurement; in the case (b), the wave function collapses when I (i.e., Alice) look. The collapse happens when I look, otherwise the wave functions evolves according to the Schroedinger equation. There is no objective wave function. Everett himself introduced the concept of relative wave function. His universal wave function in my view is "me and the universe in which I live". Until I look, there is no collapse, there are only entanglements between the measured systems and the observers (i.e., other observers, not me), resulting in the branching of the states and multiple versions of each of those observers. When I look, a collapse occurs, and I see a definite outcome and definite versions of the observers (no longer a superposition of them). All those observers, say Alice, Jane, Peter,..., agree with me about the outcome of the experiment. They all are in the same Everett world. I no longer observe alternative versions, Alice1, Alice2,..., Jane1, Jane2,...,Peter1, Peter2,... , living in alternative Everett worlds.
You wrote "I have not seen it outside our writing." I discussed all that in much more detail in my works, mentioned above, and also in the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LgGv4jb3sU
I seem to recall Carl Jung saying you should name your cooking utensils, I suppose that might give them their own personality.... should be done especially if you want to be a good cook...