@article{Dechamps_Maier_Pflitsch_Duggan_2021, title={Observer Dependent Biases of Quantum Randomness: Effect Stability and Replicability}, volume={1}, url={https://journals.lub.lu.se/jaex/article/view/23205}, DOI={10.31156/jaex.23205}, abstractNote={<div><span lang="EN-US">Quantum mechanics (QM) proposes that a quantum system measurement does not register a pre-existing reality but rather establishes reality from the superposition of potential states. Measurement reduces the quantum state according to a probability function, the Born rule, realizing one of the potential states. Consequently, a classical reality is observed. The strict randomness of the measurement outcome is well-documented (and theoretically predicted) and implies a strict indeterminacy in the physical world’s fundamental constituents. Wolfgang Pauli, with Carl Gustav Jung, extended the QM framework to measurement outcomes that are meaningfully related to human observers, providing a psychophysical theory of quantum state reductions. The Pauli-Jung model (PJM) proposes the existence of observer influences on quantum measurement outcomes rooted in the observer’s unconscious mind. The correlations between quantum state reductions and (un)conscious states of observers derived from the PJM and its mathematical reformulation within the model of pragmatic information (MPI) were empirically tested. In all studies, a subliminal priming paradigm was used to induce a biased likelihood for specific quantum measurement outcomes (i.e., a higher probability of positive picture presentations; Studies 1 and 2) or more pronounced oscillations of the evidence than expected by chance for such an effect (Studies 3 and 4). The replicability of these effects was also tested. Although Study 1 found strong initial evidence for such effects, later replications (Studies 2 to 4) showed no deviations from the Born rule. The results thus align with standard QM, arguing against the incompleteness of standard QM in psychophysical settings like those established in the studies. However, although no positive evidence exists for the PJM and the MPI, the data do not entirely falsify the model’s validity. </span></div>}, number={1-2}, journal={Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition}, author={Dechamps, Moritz C. and Maier, Markus A. and Pflitsch, Markus and Duggan, Michael}, year={2021}, month={Oct.}, pages={114–155} }