Is Matter Self Aware?

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


You are welcome, thanks for responding.

We both remain unconvinced.

Yet only one of us has presented undeniable facts. That should tell you something about the level of paradigm based bias in one of us.

Just a last question, what is your interpretation of this line,

“No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon.”

reply to post by TraitorKiller


I found your post. I will make an attempt.

reply to post by TraitorKiller


“No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon.”

Unless it is registered, observed, seen, known it cannot be said to be. Nothing can appear to exist outside of awareness.
Although this is implicitly true the human mind will argue.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Do you also find it funny that that's definately what it means, but that it is not what it "says"?

edit,

Unless it is registered, observed, seen, known it cannot be said to be. Nothing can appear to exist outside of awareness.

Actually, I think it should be "Unless it is registered, observed, seen, it doesn't exist in that form. Phenomena that we see, don't exist in that form outside of awareness."

The qoute by Bohr says that phenomena are simply not phenomena when not observed.

I don't matter in itself is self aware. If it was it would seek to communicate it's self awareness.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Do you also find it funny that that's definately what it means, but that it is not what it "says"?

I did not find it funny.
I have given what i consider to be an explanation of what the statement means to me.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I think you misinterpreted my comment. I meant the qoute is funny because Bohr's description is a bit evasive.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Do you also find it funny that that's definately what it means, but that it is not what it "says"?

edit,

Unless it is registered, observed, seen, known it cannot be said to be. Nothing can appear to exist outside of awareness.

Actually, I think it should be "Unless it is registered, observed, seen, it doesn't exist in that form. Phenomena that we see, don't exist in that form outside of awareness."

The qoute by Bohr says that phenomena are simply not phenomena when not observed.

edit on 21-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)

'Things' do not exist as such but the register has to be present for form to appear.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Has to be present where?

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Has to be present where?

Here and now is present.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I'm not sure if we are trying to say the same thing here.

But if nothings exists outside of consciousness, we don't exist outside of consciousness.

So there is only consciousness which is present by definition.

reply to post by TraitorKiller

Why do you think they came up with the Eraser exp.? The only reason is because it proves that the detector is not causing the wave function collapse, and that only leaves consciousness as an answer.

I have read the original article of the Quantum Erasure experiment. I have found nothing that even mentions consciousness. Here is the conclusion of the paper: grad.physics.sunysb.edu...

In as much as our experiment did not allow for the observer to choose the polarization angle in the time period after photon s was detected and before detection of p, our results show that a collapse of the wave function due to detection of photon s does not prohibit one from observing the expected results.

Your interpretation is merely an interpretation—a very improbable one. The fact that the ‘observer’ is a measuring device and thus a machine, does not prove anything to do with consciousness, and it pertains more to the Heisenberg Uncertainty and also the Observer Effect than it does to human consciousness.

From the Heisenberg wiki page. en.wikipedia.org...

Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology. It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.

The uncertainty principle actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the accuracy in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose accuracy in measuring the other.

From the Observer Effect wiki page: en.wikipedia.org...(physics)

In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.

The observer effect In quantum Mechanics:

This is demonstrated in a common thought experiment using the double slit setup. Imagine a double slit experiment where quantum particles are fired towards the two slits. The quantum particles pass through the slits and hit a momentum sensor a distance of D behind the slits. The momentum sensor has the ability to be turned off and on via a pin that stops the movement of the sensor when it is hit by a quantum particle. When the pin is in place, no measurement of the momentum can take place. When the pin is removed, the sensor can recoil when struck by a quantum particle and by measuring the recoil determine from which slit the quantum particle came. If the pin is removed and we can detect from which slit the particle came, then the wave-like passage through both slits cannot occur and no interference pattern will develop. However if we put the pin in place, and can no longer determine from which slit the particle passes through, then an interference pattern can develop. This can be taken a step further using the delayed choice experiment.
This thought experiment was proved correct experimentally. The people conducting the experiment found that when the sensor was turned off, an interference pattern developed, but when it was turned on, the interference pattern was destroyed. It was even found that the level of detection could affect the result.

In other words, whatever is in the experiment will cause different results, regardless of whether they are conscious or not. The only thing a conscious human had to do with the result was turning the sensor on and off. It was the sensor itself causing the wave collapse. This of course, like yours, is an interpretation, but more probable.

I searched and searched for any mention of consciousness, and couldn’t find one in any of your sources.

“No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon.”

In other words, nothing exists(or everything; wave of potential), until we, consciousness, look at it.

No, this is extremely wrong. Even Wheeler’s comment is taken out of context. He’s saying that for the Universe to have meaning, humans must give it meaning. Not that in order for the universe to exist, we must be conscious of it. Here’s his quote in the proper context:
Cont..

The anthropic principle provides a new perspective on the question of life elsewhere in space. It puts in question the common view that the universe is a big machine; that man is unimportant in the scheme of things; that we're an accidental bit of dust that doesn't have anything to do with it all. From that point of view, it is not very important whether you're going to have life on a billion planets or on just one planet -- or no life at all. Life or no life still wouldn't matter in the scheme of the universe.
But, if we adopt this other perspective that Dicke suggests -- the anthropic principle -- then it's quite a different assessment that we make. Then the universe has to be such as to permit awareness of that universe; otherwise the universe has no meaning.
We are now nearer the Big Bang than the Big Crunch since the universe, as we observe it, is still expanding.
The anthropic principle looks at this universe, that universe and the other universe and rules out as mere meaningless machines all those in which awareness does not develop somewhere at some time. Stronger than the anthropic principle is what I might call the participatory principle. According to it we could not even imagine a universe that did not somewhere and for some stretch of time contain observers because the very building materials of the universe are these acts of observer-participancy. You wouldn't have the stuff out of which to build the universe otherwise. This participatory principle takes for its foundation the absolutely central point of the quantum:
No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed (or registered) phenomenon.

In other words, it is a different perspective on the universe, not an explanation of the universe.

In other words, when we, consciousness, look at the phenomena and put them in relationship with each other, we get these outcomes. Our consciousness is connecting these phenomena.

You see how that works? You have to think for yourself

, because they refuse to spell it out like that, but it is what they are saying.

This is a gross misinterpretation, your consciousness isn’t affecting anything but how you look at the universe, not the universe itself.

Lastly, if people try to debunk the role of consciousness in these DS experiments, they always say that the detector itself is causing the wave function collapse.

Our buddy Swan being a prime example here.

I think we can agree that this way of reasoning has been proven wrong a few times in this thread already, so logically, it proves that consciousness has got to be playing a role.

I think you misinterpret what an ‘observer’ is in physics and quantum mechanics.

In quantum mechanics, "observation" is synonymous with quantum measurement and "observer" with a measurement apparatus and observable with what can be measured. Thus the quantum mechanical observer does not necessarily present or solve any problems over and above the (admittedly difficult) issue of measurement in quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanical observer is also intimately tied to the issue of observer effect.
A number of interpretations of quantum mechanics, notably "consciousness causes collapse", give the observer a special role, or place constraints on who or what can be an observer. For instance, Fritjof Capra writes:
"The crucial feature of atomic physics is that the human observer is not only necessary to observe the properties of an object, but is necessary even to define these properties. ... This can be illustrated with the simple case of a subatomic particle. When observing such a particle, one may choose to measure — among other quantities — the particle's position and its momentum" [1]
However, other authorities downplay any special role of human observers
"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."[2]
Critics of the special role of the observer also point out that observers can themselves be observed, leading to paradoxes such as that of Wigner's friend; and that it is not clear how much consciousness is required ("Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?"

Does matter have consciousness? Here's an amusing answer to that question: Only if observed

Well actually I think it's quite possible that everything in the universe has some level of consciousness. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be very scientific about it. I kind of like the idea of the matrix, we're all apart of this computer program. Everything inside the program can be occupied by some sort of consciousness at any given time. I think the universe is very much like that. In my opinion synchronicity illustrates this idea.

From personal experience, I lean toward everything being part of the same being. I could be wrong though! It really doesn't matter how it all works, it just does.

Actually, to add more wood to the fire, I think the real magic happens when something isn't being observed. I know many physicists will come to smite me for this, but the truth is they don't understand the 'whys' of quantum phenomenon. The reason why Einstein said God doesn't play dice, is because he didn't believe that quantum uncertainty was truly a random process. He thought there were underlying factors involved that we might discover later, for now though we just use mathematical probability to describe quantum behavior.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

I have read the original article of the Quantum Erasure experiment. I have found nothing that even mentions consciousness.

I already told you that they don't spell it out.

The which-path marker’s presence alone is sufficient to make the two terms on the right-hand side of Eq. ~2! orthogonal and thus there will be no cross terms in z^rzC&z 2 . Therefore, it is enough that the which-path information is available to destroy interference

Which mechanism has a correlation with the availability of theWhich Path knowledge? What part of the set up needs to know?

Your interpretation is merely an interpretation—a very improbable one. The fact that the ‘observer’ is a measuring device and thus a machine, does not prove anything to do with consciousness, and it pertains more to the Heisenberg Uncertainty and also the Observer Effect than it does to human consciousness.

Wow, the fact that you would say that after all the evidence that I posted on how the experiments work, how the erasures prove that it wasn't the detection, but the knowing, tells me that you don't get this it all.

When I say observer, I'm not talking about the observer effect. The observer effect has been proven not to be responsible for the wave function collapse. I've posted this ten times by now.

It only matters if the Which path info is available or not. You realize that every detector in the experiments is just an extention of human consciousness, that only has meaning when it is checked by humans? You don't get the concept I think.

Explain to me, why does that matter?

In other words, whatever is in the experiment will cause different results, regardless of whether they are conscious or not. The only thing a conscious human had to do with the result was turning the sensor on and off. It was the sensor itself causing the wave collapse. This of course, like yours, is an interpretation, but more probable.

In the experiments I posted this is not true. If the information is erased it behaves like it hadn't been detected at all. Doesn' t this prove that it wasn't the detector? How many times do I have to repeat myself?

In other words, it is a different perspective on the universe, not an explanation of the universe.

I never said it was. You said you couldn''t find any sources supporting my claims, I posted one.

No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed (or registered) phenomenon.

Does it say that a phenomenon exists when it is not being observed?

Stronger than the anthropic principle is what I might call the participatory principle. According to it we could not even imagine a universe that did not somewhere and for some stretch of time contain observers because the very building materials of the universe are these acts of observer-participancy. You wouldn't have the stuff out of which to build the universe otherwise. This participatory principle takes for its foundation the absolutely central point of the quantum:

This actually is exactly what I'm am saying.

This is a gross misinterpretation, your consciousness isn’t affecting anything but how you look at the universe, not the universe itself.

Then how do you explain the results? It's not the detector. The result always adapt to fit our knowledge even though they statistically can't by accident. The only connection between these results is the human.

How do you explain this,

As always with entanglement, it's important to note that no information is passing between Alice, Bob, and Victor: the settings on the detectors and the BiSA are set independently, and there's no way to communicate faster than the speed of light. Nevertheless, this experiment provides a realization of one of the fundamental paradoxes of quantum mechanics: that measurements taken at different points in space and time appear to affect each other, even though there is no mechanism that allows information to travel between them.

These types of experiments have been repeated and improved over decades and they always produce these weird inexplanable, at least in our current paradigm, results

You really think that by now, these results would still be considered remarkable if it is being caused by the observer effect itself all the time.

Btw, it's a moot point anyway, in many experiments they use a beam splitter to randomly direct the photon on one of the paths,

In one experiment, rather than splitting one photon or its probability wave between two slits, the photon is subjected to a beam splitter. If one thinks in terms of a stream of photons being randomly directed by such a beam splitter to go down two paths that are kept from interaction, it is clear that no photon can then interfere with any other or with itself.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

I think you misinterpret what an ‘observer’ is in physics and quantum mechanics.

With observer I mean a human, the experimenter. It doesn't matter that a non human detector is used, the weird results only happen when the detectors are read by humans.

It's really as simple as that. Consciousness plays a role in the whole process.

Off the piece you qouted, 2 examples actually supported my views, the two others are BS,

However, other authorities downplay any special role of human observers "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."[2]

This is dumb, if the human is required to register things, how is consciousness not involved. Who gets informed of the possible and actual?

Critics of the special role of the observer also point out that observers can themselves be observed, leading to paradoxes such as that of Wigner's friend; and that it is not clear how much consciousness is required ("Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?"

It creates a paradox? Seems like the quantum physics is riddled with paradoxes exactly because of the current views.

All you have done sofar is a google search to come up with different interpretations that refute my claims, yet, none of them actually adress the proof I mentioned like 15 times by now,

The eraser experiments prove that the only thing that matters is that the Which Path info is available or not, regardless of a detection.

The only thing that matter is if we can know or not. The result adapts to our knowledge.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

n as much as our experiment did not allow for the observer to choose the polarization angle in the time period after photon s was detected and before detection of p, our results show that a collapse of the wave function due to detection of photon s does not prohibit one from observing the expected results.

Be complete, post the whole conclusion.

We have presented a quantum eraser that uses a Young double slit to create interference. The quarter-wave plates in FIG. 9. Coincidence counts in the delayed-erasure setup when QPW1, QWP2, and POL1 are in place. POL1 was set to u 1p/2, the angle of the fast axis of QWP2. Interference has been restored in the antifringe pattern. DOUBLE-SLIT QUANTUM ERASER PHYSICAL REVIEW A 65 033818 033818-5our experiment served as the which-path markers to destroy interference. We recovered interference using the entanglement of photons s and p. Our quantum eraser is very similar to the that of Scully, Englert, and Walther @10#. We have shown that interference can be destroyed, by marking the path of the interfering photon, and recovered, by making an appropriate measurement on the other entangled photon. We have also investigated this experiment under the conditions of delayed erasure, in which the interfering photon s is detected before photon p. In as much as our experiment did not allow for the observer to choose the polarization angle in the time period after photon s was detected and before detection of p, our results show that a collapse of the wave function due to detection of photon s does not prohibit one from observing the expected results. Our experimental data agree with the proposal of Scully, Englert, and Walther that quantum erasure can be performed after the interfering particle has been detected @10#.

What part would you say disputes anything I said? Their conclusion is just like I described. They can erase the info of detection after it has already registered and the result still always corresponds with not knowing the path,even though it was still open wether it would be known or not at the moment of detection at the first detector, and there is no way of communication.

Except for the human consciousness conducting the experiment.

It only matters if the Which path info is available or not. You realize that every detector in the experiments is just an extention of human consciousness, that only has meaning when it is checked by humans? You don't get the concept I think.

Are you serious? The detector is an extension of human consciousness? This is complete fantasy based on zero evidence.

I found something regarding consciousness and quantum physics:
Quantum Conscious

The quantum mind or quantum consciousness hypothesis proposes that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness, while quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function, and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness.

A few theoretical physicists have argued that classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, but that quantum theory provides the missing aspects. However, some physicists and philosophers consider the arguments for an important role of quantum phenomena to be unconvincing.[1] Physicist Victor Stenger characterized quantum consciousness as a "myth" having "no scientific basis" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason and their own eyes tell them about the world." [2]

The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function. [3][4]

The philosopher David Chalmers has also argued against quantum consciousness. He speculated on a number of ways in which quantum mechanics might relate to consciousness.[5] However, Chalmers is also sceptical about the ability of any kind of New Physics to resolve the Hard Problem of Consciousness: [6] [7]

(my emphasis)

quantum decoherence

nterference phenomena are a well-known and crucial aspect of quantum mechanics, famously exemplified by the two-slit experiment. There are situations, however, in which interference effects are artificially or spontaneously suppressed. The theory of decoherence is precisely the study of (spontaneous) interactions between a system and its environment that lead to such suppression of interference. We shall make more precise what we mean by this in Section 1, which discusses the concept of suppression of interference and gives a simplified survey of the theory, emphasising features that will be relevant to the following discussion. In fact, the term decoherence refers to two largely overlapping areas of research. The characteristic feature of the first (often called ‘dynamical’ or ‘environmental’ decoherence) is the study of concrete models of (spontaneous) interactions between a system and its environment that lead to suppression of interference effects. That of the second (the theory of ‘decoherent histories’ or ‘consistent histories’) is an abstract (and in fact more general) formalism that captures the essential features of the phenomenon of decoherence. The two are obviously closely related, and will both be reviewed in turn in Section 1.

I found something else regarding consciousness and quantum physics:
Quantum mysticism

Quantum mysticism is a term that has been used to refer to a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence or mystical world-views to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations.[1][2][3][4][5][6] An example is the idea that consciousness causes collapse (e.g. the act of observation affects reality directly). Many ideas associated with "quantum mysticism" have been criticized as either misinterpretations of quantum mechanics or as pseudoscience.[7][8][9]

The term originally emerged from the founders of quantum theory in the early twentieth century as they debated the interpretations and implications of their nascent theories, which would later evolve into quantum mechanics.[2][10] The essential qualities of early quantum theory, and the ontological questions that emerged from it, made a distinction between philosophical and scientific discussion difficult as quantum theory developed into a strong scientific theory.

(my emphasis)

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

Are you serious? The detector is an extension of human consciousness? This is complete fantasy based on zero evidence.

I think it is time to stop this discussion because you can´t even grasp the concept.

In order to get any result, we have to at some point check the detectors. The experiments have proven that until we do, no result has meaning or even exists.

How can you say the detectors are not an extension of human consciousness? If we don't check them, how can we know anything about the experiment? The only reason detectors are used is because we can't see it with the naked eye, but they only exist because human consciousness wants to observe something, they are simply an extension.

You are still ignoring the evidence I have posted at least 15 times.

I found something regarding consciousness and quantum physics: Quantum Conscious

That's all you are doing, finding statements that do not agree with my claims. We already established that there is no consensus. You are going of on google searches when all the info you need to discuss has already been posted numerous times.

It is funny to me that in these discussions, the skeptics just seem to refuse to discuss the evidence even though it keeps getting presented to them. Probably because they don't get it and don't recognise it as such.

These are the two important things that need explaining.

This stage shows that it is the existence of the "which-path" information which causes the destruction of the interference pattern. The second stage goes by erasing the "which-path" information, and demonstrating that the interference pattern is recovered. It does not matter whether the erasure procedure is done before or after the detection of the photons.

It is not the detection itself that causes the wave funcrtion collapse, but the existence of which path info, so I ask again, to what else but consciousness does it matter if the info is available?

A variation of this experiment, delayed choice quantum eraser, allows the decision whether to measure or destroy the "which path" information to be delayed until after the entangled particle partner (the one going through the slits) has either interfered with itself or not. Doing so appears to have the bizarre effect of causing the outcome of an event after the event has already occurred. In other words, something that happens at time t apparently reaches back to some time t - 1 and acts as a determining causal factor at that earlier time.

How come that a result registered in the past, which was at that time a random result, always corresponds to what we have learned about the entangled partner in the future?

At the time the result was registered it was still unknown wether the which path info would be available or not, yet it always matches the future outcome that is learned by us.

The only way for the end result not to be random is because it adapts to our consciousness. That is the only reason why it ALWAYS corresponds.

If it was random chance it wouldn't always correspond.

The same goes for this exp,

As always with entanglement, it's important to note that no information is passing between Alice, Bob, and Victor: the settings on the detectors and the BiSA are set independently, and there's no way to communicate faster than the speed of light. Nevertheless, this experiment provides a realization of one of the fundamental paradoxes of quantum mechanics: that measurements taken at different points in space and time appear to affect each other, even though there is no mechanism that allows information to travel between them.

Suffice it to say that facile explanations about information passing between Alice's and Bob's photons lead to violations of causality, since Alice and Bob perform their polarization measurement before Victor makes his choice about whether to entangle his photons or not. (Similarly, if you think that all the photons come from a single laser source, they must be correlated from the start, and you must answer how they "know" what Victor is going to do before he does it.) The picture certainly looks like future events influence the past, a view any right-minded physicist would reject. The authors conclude with some strong statements about the nature of physical reality that I'm not willing to delve into (the nature of physical reality is a bit above my pay grade).

How do they "know" and what is that nature of physical reality that is mentioned?

There is one mechanism that allows travel of information between them. The only one there is is the consciousnss of the experimenter. It is the only option. We can choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit our paradigm, but it clearly is the only thing connecting them.


Please adress these things, they are the core of the whole concept.

Nice to see you back and posting something more substantial. However your examples are in my opinion flawed

Originally posted by swan001

I present you with other point of view. You, as a individual being, are free to choose.
If you would have studied physics a bit further, you would have know that the quote from Wikipedia you generously gave me actually benefits my opinion. It basically says that the wave function is a SET OF EVENTS (not an actual physical wave, as you tend to believe) that unfolds under the eyes of the Observer.

Whether it is a physical wave or a ‘Set of Events’ is of little relevance. What we are discussing is whether or not consciousness is what is affecting the particles.

TraitorKiller and myself to a lesser degree have posted evidence which is completely accepted by the scientific community that not only does the act of observation collapse a wave function, but that it is indeed the act of observation not the equipment used which causes this

Have you ever read about the Schrödinger's cat? To help his readers to better understand him, Schrödinger used the viewpoint of the Observer, which, by its presence in the wave function equation, would disrupt the said equation and collapse it into one reality. Is the Observer the cause of this collapse? From the Observer's view point, yes. But in reality, the Observer is just an observer (that's why he got the name, see? He's not called the Doer) that keeps observing collapses. Is the Sun orbiting Earth? From Earth's view point, yes. But in reality the Earth is just a planet, amongst others, which reacts to the Sun by orbiting around it. When a possibility of events exist, they all have an equal amount of being possible (bases to the multiverse theory) and as long as you don't break the stealmate by Observing the set of events, these possibilities all coexist. But once you Observe the set of events, only one event unfolds. You broke the stealmate. Physicists call it "collapsing the wave function".

Agreed but unfortunately I again fail to see the relevance to the issue at hand.

Let's say you are walking around, at night, in your (I presume New Agey styled) house. Then you hear a sound behind you. You know someone is behind you, but what is it? What if it's Granny? Or maybe it's an italian gangster that wants your money. Maybe it's David Copperfield. What if it's an ex-CIA agent gone haywire? Or maybe an alien. In physics, we say that all these are workable possibilities. So, you grab your orgone generator (your closest peaceful weapon) and you slowly turn to look behind you, and there! You see it's just your dog. All the other possibilities can be ruled out. You collapsed them. Does that mean that all these folks (Granny, Capone, David, Bourne, E.T.) were all together behind you all that time? No. Just your dog. Does that mean that just by observing, you magically transformed everyone behind you into a dog? No. Your dog stayed a dog.

Again not relevant for your example is on the macro scale for starters. We are discussing subatomic particles. If you wanted to take it to a macro scale it could be argued that Granny, Capone, David, Bourne and the E.T. posses a conscious identity of who and what they are within the physical world and therefore your observations will have little effect. I could take this much further but if you want but it is off topic.

Another example involves a deck of cards, face down. The top card has the simultaneous possibilities of being any of the 52 cards of the deck, but once you observe it, only then will you discover that it was a, say, 9 of clubs all along.

Again another example on the macro scale. But one thing you may want to consider is how can you really be sure it was the 9 or clubs ‘all along’....?

Physics is the same way. When Bohr used to talk with Einstein about theories, Einstein was very perplexed by the cryptic way those physicists explained themselves. Einstein asked Bohr one day: "But if you don't look at the Moon, surely you don't think that the Moon will disapear? " Einstein asked that question half-jokingly... Of course we know that the Moon won't disapear if we stop looking at it, because if that was the case we would feel the consequences of its gravitational absence here on Earth.
So, that's a wave function and its collapse. No magic is involved.
I sincerely hope I clarified it for you. You understand why now I say matter isn't self-aware? Matter is just matter.

Matter is not ‘just matter’ and as a physicist you should know better. Matter is mainly empty space consisting of subatomic particles which have been shown to respond to the act of human observation.

I am glad to know that at least you're into sciences. I happened to have some question about geology but that will be for another time... Keep up with the good work, science is good.

Feel free to U2U me your questions anytime

Werner Heisenberg demonstrated that a particle's position or motion would be affected by "observation". If you attempt to detetmine its position, you affect its motion. If you attempt to determine its motion, you affect its position.

Why did he say that? Here's why. Werner started by thinking: How can we observe a particle's motion/position in the first place? Well, particles are too small to be visible to naked eye. Optical microscopes won't do the job neither, as these are still not enoughly powerful. The only way you can detect the presence of a particle is by sending an electron beam, just like an electron microscope would do. Now, as a beam undergoes wavelenght phenomena, you have to make sure the beam's frequency is high enough so that its wavelenght doesn't exceed the particle's size, or else the beam would just jump over the target without detecting it. When the high-frequency beam finally detects the particle, it would be reflected to the microscope sensors and display on the monitor. Thus, you will be able to "Observe" it. But what happens to the small target particle after it was hit by a high-frequency electron beam? It reacts.

Let's say you play pool. You can't see because someone decided it would be fun for you to play in the dark. Weird enough, this someone also decided you would play with only one ball (in addition to the white one) instead of the usual set. This lone ball in the dark represent the target particle. But, luckily enough for you, your white ball is phosphorescent, so it's the only thing you can see. This white ball represents the beam. So, you take your white ball out of your pocket, put it on the table, and shoot. You send the beam toward the target, which is in the dark. Luckily, the white ball (the beam) hits something in the center of the table, and sharply bounces back to you. So, now you know exactly where the target ball was: its location is the point where your white ball rebounded. So, cool, you know the position of the target (you just hit it). But this target reacted to the collision too! Now where does it go? You affected the target's state by "observing" it and now its motion is unknown

That's what Werner meant. One of the guy's book (Can't remember if it was Hawkin's or Susskind's) I read explained the details quite eloquently. Susskind is really easy to read, and his books were a good start.
That's why Heisenberg's Incertitude Principle only applies to particles, as particles don't send light to your eyes and are too tiny to be seen, so you have to hit them with electron beam if you want to observe one. Anything bigger will escape that principle.

I like your pool table analogy. One of the best I’ve read actually but there is one thing you’ve failed to consider. Your pool balls are not producing any patterns on a screen depending on whether or not you hit them which really is the main crux of this debate.