Quantum Mechanics and the CCC
Quantum mechanics represents the most successful predictive framework in the history of science. As a set of mathematical procedures, it operates with unparalleled precision. However, the reality behind the procedures, specifically the transition from the probabilistic evolution of the wave function to a singular observed state, remains the subject of intense debate (Mariani, 2024). Before a measurement occurs, a quantum system evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger wave function, which describes all possible states of a particle as a distribution of probabilities. Yet, upon measurement, this distribution "collapses" into a singular, definite value. This transition is not dictated by the deterministic evolution of the wave function preceding it; rather, it appears to be a stochastic "selection" from the available possibilities. While repeating measurements over time will eventually map out the amplitudes of the wave function, the outcome of any single measurement is fundamentally undetermined by its prior physical state.
Surveys of the field demonstrate a lack of consensus regarding the physical reality underlying these procedures (Gibney, 2025; Schlosshauer et al., 2013). The standard orthodoxy, the Copenhagen Interpretation, suggests that possible states exist in a "superposition," a simultaneous manifestation of mutually exclusive properties, until the act of measurement forces a resolution. However, Copenhagen is notoriously silent on what constitutes a "measurement." This ambiguity has given rise to several competing interpretations. The Many-Worlds interpretation (Everett, 1957) claims that the universe branches every time a measurement is taken on a quantum system, and that all the possibilities are actually realized in separate universes. Other interpretations maintain that nonlocal hidden variables are determining the results of each measurement (Bohm, 1980), or that the collapse of the wave function is a random yet objective process (Ghirardi et al., 1986; Penrose, 1989).
The Consciousness Causes Collapse (CCC) interpretation is an augmentation of the Copenhagen interpretation first suggested in the work of von Neumann (1932). It found early support from Fritz London & Edmond Bauer (1939) and was expanded upon by Wigner (1961). It suggests that the causal chain of physical interactions from the particle to the detector to the brain does not possess a natural "break" where collapse must occur. Mathematically, the superposition persists through every physical medium. The only non-physical element capable of terminating this "von Neumann chain" is the subjective perception of a conscious observer.
In the years since its inception, the CCC interpretation has been further developed by researchers across a variety of disciplines, some using it to make a case for dualism (Schwartz & Begley, 2002; Stapp, 2001; Walker, 2000) or for monistic idealism (Goswami, 1993; Lanza & Berman, 2009). In addition, other researchers (Bierman, 2008; Levin, 2023) have used it to explain the body of research supporting predictive anticipatory activity (Duggan & Tressoldi, 2018; Mossbridge et al., 2014), as well as psi effects within quantum randomness (Radin et al., 2012). However, the interpretation remains unpopular. Many consider the CCC interpretation to be unparsimonious and unscientific because it introduces nonphysical elements into physics (e.g., Stenger, 1993). Furthermore, most scientists and philosophers consider consciousness itself to be an entirely physical process (e.g., Dennett, 1991; Levine, 2001; Papineau, 2002), although this view has been contested by others (e.g., Chalmers, 1995; Goff, 2019; Kastrup, 2019). Nevertheless, interest in the CCC interpretation persists into the present day among researchers who continue to argue that it remains a mathematically and conceptually viable way to interpret quantum mechanics (Chalmers & McQueen, 2021; Kent, 2021).
The primary difficulty in testing the CCC is experimentally differentiating whether it is the interaction with a physical measurement device that causes the wave function’s collapse, or if conscious observation of that result is necessary for collapse to occur. These two processes appear to be hopelessly intertwined: how does one measure a system without eventually observing the result? To test the CCC, these two possibilities, environmental decoherence from a scaled-up measurement device versus conscious observation of the device output, must be directly pitted against each other in the experimental design. If it can be demonstrated that measurement in the absence of consciousness brought about collapse, then the CCC is falsified, and other interpretations (e.g., Many Worlds, Pilot Wave, Objective Collapse) remain viable candidates. Conversely, if measurement without consciousness does not collapse the wave function, then large, macro-scale superpositions are possible so long as they remain hidden from consciousness. This is an empirical question that can be confronted using methods from experimental psychology that exploit the gap between physical interaction and conscious observation.
Surveys of the field demonstrate a lack of consensus regarding the physical reality underlying these procedures (Gibney, 2025; Schlosshauer et al., 2013). The standard orthodoxy, the Copenhagen Interpretation, suggests that possible states exist in a "superposition," a simultaneous manifestation of mutually exclusive properties, until the act of measurement forces a resolution. However, Copenhagen is notoriously silent on what constitutes a "measurement." This ambiguity has given rise to several competing interpretations. The Many-Worlds interpretation (Everett, 1957) claims that the universe branches every time a measurement is taken on a quantum system, and that all the possibilities are actually realized in separate universes. Other interpretations maintain that nonlocal hidden variables are determining the results of each measurement (Bohm, 1980), or that the collapse of the wave function is a random yet objective process (Ghirardi et al., 1986; Penrose, 1989).
The Consciousness Causes Collapse (CCC) interpretation is an augmentation of the Copenhagen interpretation first suggested in the work of von Neumann (1932). It found early support from Fritz London & Edmond Bauer (1939) and was expanded upon by Wigner (1961). It suggests that the causal chain of physical interactions from the particle to the detector to the brain does not possess a natural "break" where collapse must occur. Mathematically, the superposition persists through every physical medium. The only non-physical element capable of terminating this "von Neumann chain" is the subjective perception of a conscious observer.
In the years since its inception, the CCC interpretation has been further developed by researchers across a variety of disciplines, some using it to make a case for dualism (Schwartz & Begley, 2002; Stapp, 2001; Walker, 2000) or for monistic idealism (Goswami, 1993; Lanza & Berman, 2009). In addition, other researchers (Bierman, 2008; Levin, 2023) have used it to explain the body of research supporting predictive anticipatory activity (Duggan & Tressoldi, 2018; Mossbridge et al., 2014), as well as psi effects within quantum randomness (Radin et al., 2012). However, the interpretation remains unpopular. Many consider the CCC interpretation to be unparsimonious and unscientific because it introduces nonphysical elements into physics (e.g., Stenger, 1993). Furthermore, most scientists and philosophers consider consciousness itself to be an entirely physical process (e.g., Dennett, 1991; Levine, 2001; Papineau, 2002), although this view has been contested by others (e.g., Chalmers, 1995; Goff, 2019; Kastrup, 2019). Nevertheless, interest in the CCC interpretation persists into the present day among researchers who continue to argue that it remains a mathematically and conceptually viable way to interpret quantum mechanics (Chalmers & McQueen, 2021; Kent, 2021).
The primary difficulty in testing the CCC is experimentally differentiating whether it is the interaction with a physical measurement device that causes the wave function’s collapse, or if conscious observation of that result is necessary for collapse to occur. These two processes appear to be hopelessly intertwined: how does one measure a system without eventually observing the result? To test the CCC, these two possibilities, environmental decoherence from a scaled-up measurement device versus conscious observation of the device output, must be directly pitted against each other in the experimental design. If it can be demonstrated that measurement in the absence of consciousness brought about collapse, then the CCC is falsified, and other interpretations (e.g., Many Worlds, Pilot Wave, Objective Collapse) remain viable candidates. Conversely, if measurement without consciousness does not collapse the wave function, then large, macro-scale superpositions are possible so long as they remain hidden from consciousness. This is an empirical question that can be confronted using methods from experimental psychology that exploit the gap between physical interaction and conscious observation.
References
Bierman, D. (2008). Consciousness-induced restoration of time-symmetry (CIRTS), a psychophysical theoretical perspective [Paper presentation]. 51st Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association.
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. Routledge.
Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219.
Chalmers, D. J., & McQueen, K. J. (2021). Consciousness and the collapse of the wave function. In S. Gao (Ed.), Consciousness and quantum mechanics. Oxford University Press.
Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Little, Brown and Company.
Duggan, M., & Tressoldi, P. (2018). Predictive physiological anticipatory activity preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: An update of
Mossbridge et al.'s meta-analysis. F1000Research, 7, Article 407. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.14330.2
Everett, H. (1957). "Relative state" formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29(3), 454–462.
Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1986). Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Physical Review D, 34(2), 470–491.
Gibney, E. (2025). Physicists disagree wildly on what quantum mechanics says about reality, Nature survey shows. Nature, 643(8074), 1175–1179. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02342-y
Goff, P. (2019). Galileo's error: Foundations for a new science of consciousness. Vintage.
Goswami, A. (1993). The self-aware universe. Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam's Sons.
Kastrup, B. (2019). The idea of the world: A multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality. Iff Books.
Kent, A. (2021). Collapse and measures of consciousness. Foundations of Physics, 51(3), 1–14.
Kim, J. (2005). Physicalism, or something near enough. Princeton University Press.
Lanza, R., & Berman, B. (2009). Biocentrism: How life and consciousness are the keys to understanding the true nature of the universe. BenBella Books.
Levin, E. Y. (2023). The presentiment effect points to an occurrence of a von Neumann’s collapse. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition, 3(1), 174–193. https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.24455
Levine, J. (2001). Purple haze: The puzzle of conscious experience. The MIT Press.
London, F. Bauer, E. "La théorie de l'observation en mécanique quantique" (in French) (1939), English translation in Quantum Theory and Measurement, edited by J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, Princeton University, Princeton New Jersey, 1983, pp. 217–259. ISBN 0-691-08315-0
Mariani, C. (2024). The determinacy problem in quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 54(6), 1–19.
Mossbridge, J. A., Tressoldi, P., Utts, J., Ives, J. A., Radin, D., & Jonas, W. B. (2014). Predicting the unpredictable: Critical analysis and practical implications of predictive anticipatory activity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 146.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00146
Papineau, D. (2002). Thinking about consciousness. Oxford University Press.
Penrose, R. (1989). The emperor's new mind. Oxford University Press.
Radin, D., Michel, L., Galdamez, K., Wendlandt, R., Rickenbach, R., & Delorme, A. (2012). Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments. Physics Essays, 25(2), 157–171.
Schlosshauer, M., Kofler, J., & Zeilinger, A. (2013). A snapshot of foundational attitudes toward quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44(3), 222–230.
Schwartz, J. M., & Begley, S. (2002). The mind and the brain: Neuroplasticity and the power of mental force. HarperCollins.
Stapp, H. (2001). Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature. Foundations of Physics, 31(10), 1465–1499. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012682413597
Stenger, V. (1993). The myth of quantum consciousness. The Humanist, 53, 13–15.
von Neumann, J. (1932). Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. Princeton University Press.
Walker, E. H. (2000). The physics of consciousness: The quantum mind and the meaning of life. Perseus Books.
Wigner, E. P. (1961). Remarks on the mind-body question. In I. J. Good (Ed.), The scientist speculates (pp. 284–302). Heinemann.
Bierman, D. (2008). Consciousness-induced restoration of time-symmetry (CIRTS), a psychophysical theoretical perspective [Paper presentation]. 51st Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association.
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. Routledge.
Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219.
Chalmers, D. J., & McQueen, K. J. (2021). Consciousness and the collapse of the wave function. In S. Gao (Ed.), Consciousness and quantum mechanics. Oxford University Press.
Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Little, Brown and Company.
Duggan, M., & Tressoldi, P. (2018). Predictive physiological anticipatory activity preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: An update of
Mossbridge et al.'s meta-analysis. F1000Research, 7, Article 407. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.14330.2
Everett, H. (1957). "Relative state" formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29(3), 454–462.
Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1986). Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Physical Review D, 34(2), 470–491.
Gibney, E. (2025). Physicists disagree wildly on what quantum mechanics says about reality, Nature survey shows. Nature, 643(8074), 1175–1179. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02342-y
Goff, P. (2019). Galileo's error: Foundations for a new science of consciousness. Vintage.
Goswami, A. (1993). The self-aware universe. Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam's Sons.
Kastrup, B. (2019). The idea of the world: A multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality. Iff Books.
Kent, A. (2021). Collapse and measures of consciousness. Foundations of Physics, 51(3), 1–14.
Kim, J. (2005). Physicalism, or something near enough. Princeton University Press.
Lanza, R., & Berman, B. (2009). Biocentrism: How life and consciousness are the keys to understanding the true nature of the universe. BenBella Books.
Levin, E. Y. (2023). The presentiment effect points to an occurrence of a von Neumann’s collapse. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition, 3(1), 174–193. https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.24455
Levine, J. (2001). Purple haze: The puzzle of conscious experience. The MIT Press.
London, F. Bauer, E. "La théorie de l'observation en mécanique quantique" (in French) (1939), English translation in Quantum Theory and Measurement, edited by J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, Princeton University, Princeton New Jersey, 1983, pp. 217–259. ISBN 0-691-08315-0
Mariani, C. (2024). The determinacy problem in quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 54(6), 1–19.
Mossbridge, J. A., Tressoldi, P., Utts, J., Ives, J. A., Radin, D., & Jonas, W. B. (2014). Predicting the unpredictable: Critical analysis and practical implications of predictive anticipatory activity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 146.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00146
Papineau, D. (2002). Thinking about consciousness. Oxford University Press.
Penrose, R. (1989). The emperor's new mind. Oxford University Press.
Radin, D., Michel, L., Galdamez, K., Wendlandt, R., Rickenbach, R., & Delorme, A. (2012). Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments. Physics Essays, 25(2), 157–171.
Schlosshauer, M., Kofler, J., & Zeilinger, A. (2013). A snapshot of foundational attitudes toward quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44(3), 222–230.
Schwartz, J. M., & Begley, S. (2002). The mind and the brain: Neuroplasticity and the power of mental force. HarperCollins.
Stapp, H. (2001). Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature. Foundations of Physics, 31(10), 1465–1499. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012682413597
Stenger, V. (1993). The myth of quantum consciousness. The Humanist, 53, 13–15.
von Neumann, J. (1932). Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. Princeton University Press.
Walker, E. H. (2000). The physics of consciousness: The quantum mind and the meaning of life. Perseus Books.
Wigner, E. P. (1961). Remarks on the mind-body question. In I. J. Good (Ed.), The scientist speculates (pp. 284–302). Heinemann.