Premise:
Language games alter our perception of reality (and consciousness), and therefore could have a causal connection to quantum interference and the collapse
of the wave function.
Summary
Quantum-events (collapse of the wave function) are potentially affected by conscious observation and consciousness (Von Neumann-Wigner etc ref). –
quantum interference.
Language makes up a large part of our consciousness.
Examples (like recursion) show how important language is to what it means to be human (and therefore a part of consciousness):
‘Recursion, in sum, allows language to become an infinite system. The Chomskyan view is that this ability is quite special, unique to humans. It is, in essence,
what distinguishes us from other animals – the source of complex thought and communication, and thus complex mathematical, artistic and linguistic ability.
Wittgenstein’s language game theory suggests that meaning is a result of rules that underpin the ‘games’. Do these rules impact our appreciation/shape of
our reality, or do they stop at meaning? What impact does meaning have on the different metaphysical layers of reality? (counter arguments/nonwittgenstein/minds theory)
Is it therefore possible that language games, shaping at least part of our reality and conscious experience, can have a measurable effect (projection?) on
quantum level events (i.e. different games producing different realities, producing different consciousnesses, creating variations in the same quantum
experiments and results)?
‘Henry Stapp has argued for the concept as follows:[4]
From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of
atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe… Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to
be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device… Our bodies
and brains thus become … parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a
conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation…’
If so, how do we identify these games? And what consequences does this have on our understanding of empiricism, quantum mechanics, and
consciousness as a shared/fragmented construct? There are significant ontological and epistemological challenges created by such an interpretation.