I don’t think so, from how kromem words it:
(i.e. collapse occurs at the point you are reviewing the data).
The person reading the data is the consciousness, and the collapse is deferred in this case.
What I find interesting about this idea is: What if the computer were to take actions based on the data? Would the collapse occur at the point where agonist notices the effects of those actions? Does it occur when they logically link the action to the event?
I could imagine this as a sliding scale, where in one end is something obvious (reading the data, or an indicator light) and on the other end not obvious at all (a circuit heating up slightly different due to the data being stored). Both of these things have effects in physical reality (presumably), so I wonder at what point in that scale are we would call it a “consciousness collapse”?
While it doesn’t address the topic of consciousness, you might find some of how this sort of “backwards in time change” is being applied today interesting:
https://phys.org/news/2023-10-simulations-scientific.html
Additionally, the philosophy of quantum measurement is kind of up in the air after a 2020 experiment:
https://www.science.org/content/article/quantum-paradox-points-shaky-foundations-reality
Which led to what’s currently my favorite titled paper, Stable facts, relative facts: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.15543
So one of the challenges that would arise from layers of delayed/hidden observations would be whether you’d even have universal agreement at the final review. i.e. The computer might have observed the cat as alive and baked a cake celebrating it, but then you open the box to a dead cat, each having correctly observed a result, just separated enough that they didn’t need to agree.
Interesting, and thanks for the links! Always down to add another perspective to my repertoire.
