The paper relies implicitly on the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation of quantum physics, which has consciousness as an assumption. So the paper is part of a circle argument. [1]<p>On top of that, this interpretation is very controversial to say the least. In most interpretations, the role of the 'observer' is left in the middle, as there is no good reason to assume it should be conscious.<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_inte...</a>
> Because the observables correspond
to the reference frame of the observer and they exist in the complex Hilbert
space, it must be concluded that, unlike reference frames in classical physics,
quantum observables correspond to an observer’s reference frame in thought.<p>The whole argument rests on this sentence, which is just pure nonsense. There's nothing about Hilbert spaces that has anything to do with conscious thought; the conclusion is a complete non sequitur. The context of the sentence doesn't add anything to support such a notion, either.<p>This is just another in a long line of people putting way too much stock in the very unfortunate choice of the word "observation" as used in QM.
>A certain phenomenon of consciousness is demonstrated to be fully represented as a computational process using a quantum computer. Based on the computability criterion discussed with Turing machines, the model constructed is shown to necessarily involve a non-computable element.<p>So, the universe contains uncomputable physics?<p>Some aspect of quantum computing is uncomputable (beyond mere exponential slowdown in a classical simulation)?<p>Edit: those two claims are at least as interesting as anything about consciousness, but much more amenable to further study!