A very interesting question. The attached article has some rather moot points, anyway the question could be reworded as follows:

1- Background

Wavefunction collapse means either that some variable (a) becomes entangled with a set of other already correlated variables (amongst themselves), aka objects, (B) - meaning that (a) becomes incorporated into some valid Schrödinger equation linking up these variables, and that henceforth SchrΨ(a,B)= 0, where Schr(Ψ) is the Schrödinger equation applied to Ψ(a,B). That's also called coherence. The reverse process, when an object exits and leaves the set of correlated objects within Schödinger, is called decoherence, but is also equivalent to a form of wave function collapse

2- So the question is: does consciousness cause coherence , or as the case may be, decoherence to occur.

Consciousness is at its heart a measuring apparatus - its effective role is pretty well established in e.g. the so-called Quantum Zeno effect. There is a mountain of evidence that consciousness is capable of establishing coherence (of course, it may not be the only way to establish coherence: any bona fide measuring capability is in principle able to do that, be it an electron microscope or even possibly an eye, as long as the measuring instrument can be represented by a wave function)

So the answer has to be that yes, consciousness is capable of triggering coherence/decoherence, but it is likely not the only mechanism. Any measuring device leading to a new 'association' of wavefunctions can lead to wf collapse.

Akira, a lot of work has been done since the days of those pioneers. Dieter Zeh and others have significantly advanced the field since.

Kind regards

Chris

@H. Chris Ransford and Akira Kanda: thank you for your answers. I think both of you Have some points of truth here: H. Chris Ransford wrote that there are some progress in recent years, but Prof. Akira Kanda emphasizes that unlike what was described by von Neumann, the measurement problem is not just an operational or functional problem. Something deeper is involved. What do you think? Thanks

Akira, you did not need to downvote my contribution.

I also have to disagree with you - yet I'm not downvoting your comment - but your statement 'the theory hasn't changed at all ' is incorrect.

First of all, there is certainly not one single theory - experimental results have given rise to no less than 30 - thirty - interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, of which 14 - fourteen - are deemed mainstream. Then the recent further advances on coherence and decoherence (recent to the extent that the word 'decoherence' is not even in dictionaries) which have been pioneered by the likes of Zeh et al, constitute major advances in understanding what happens and the role of consciousness as a measuring device.

Your statement Quote The problem with physicists is that very few understand what a theory is.Unquote seems extraordinarily overweening. May I ask what your formal qualifications are as a physicist? I wish you refrained from derogatory and/or inexact comments, and from blithely downvoting.

Victor, I do not know whether 'something deeper' is involved. The possibility of hidden variables was rather convincingly laid to rest, by Gleason's theorem et al. on the theoretical side, and by the work of Renato Renner, Roger Colbeck et al. as well (who demonstrated that even if hidden variables existed it could not alter the significant outcomes.)

It seems that the current understanding of the role of consciousness as an agent, enabling the advent of correlation between hitherto uncorrelated entities, stands (by means of associative measurements) provided that no alternate interpretation such as the Everett many world interpretation holds.

Not mine. I am not responsible for the woes and miseries of this world

Wave function is termed as redundant in following interpretations.

the Consistent histories approach, self-dubbed "Copenhagen done right"

the Bohm interpretation

the Many-worlds interpretation

the Ensemble Interpretation

This seems to be open question till now, because there are lot of debates going as well on Many world interpretation.

Regards,

Bhsuhan Poojary

I think the wavefunction itself is precoded to collapse in a specific manner under given circumstances as if the particle wave makes its own conscious decision. It may have nothing to do with the consciousness of the observer.

This is where science and spirituality merge together based on Nobel Laureate (1965) physicist Richard Feynman, in the all-connected quantum field where the subject and the object become "one".  Please read my article in RG entitled, "Science and Spirituality ....". If you have any further question I will be happy to answer.

@Igor, Bhushan, Vikram, Tushar: thank you for your answes.

@Akira: i agree with you that there were fundamental problems with how QM founding fathers approached the problem at microscale, for example: Schrodinger's wave equation is unrealistic wave unlike classical wave. If you wish, i can send you my recent paper discussing this subject. If you wish, you can also send me your paper privately regarding this topic. Thank you

Dear Prof. Akira Kanda: thank you for your answer. But i have one question: i can see that QM is full of problematic questions, but i only read a few papers that Maxwell equations have deep errors too. Can you explain then which theory of e.m should we use? Shall we return to Faraday or other theory? Or can you suggest a good paper or two on the mistakes of Maxwell and how to correct his errors? Thanks

Dear Prof. Akira Kanda: thank you for your answer, not it is little bit more clear. So do you mean that the Special Theory of Relativity is more significant achievement compared to Maxwell's equations? If yes, then should we introduce an improvement to Maxwell-Faraday's equations to make them relativistic? Then how? Or shall we return to Weber-Ampere electrodynamics? I read sometime ago some papers on Weber theory by A.K.T. Assis, but not sure what is its difference compared to Maxwell theory. Can you suggest a good paper or book to read on this subject? Thanks. Best wishes

We don't need consciousness for collapsing the wave-function, because not our consciousness measures the observables of the quantum objects. The 1st contact of the wave-function with macroscopic measuring devices are the apparatuses. They perform the measurement and the recording. We merely look at the recordings, or hear the clicks, or read printed reports.