Commentary: false-positive effect in the Radin double-slit experiment on observer consciousness as determined with the advanced Meta-experimental protocol
Open accessAbstract
GENERAL COMMENTARY article Front. Psychol., 15 April 2020Sec. Cognition Volume 11 - 2020 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00726
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Double-slit experiments prove that we do not have external causation of our conscious mind.
“This CWF happens inside our brains, altering our inner physiology, not influencing our external world, as experiments of the double-slit experiments prove that we do not have external causation of our conscious mind (Walleczek and von Stillfried, 2020a,b; Radin et al., 2020).”
From The collapse of the wave function as the mediator of free will in prime neurons (2025) · cites this paper as Radin et al., 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 8 · Cited by 11
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Benjamini Y. Hochberg Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 57, 289– 300. 10.2307/2346101 · DOI
- Authors
- Radin, D., Wahbeh, H., Michel, L., & Delorme, A.
- Affiliations
- Institute of Noetic Sciences (US)
- Corresponding author
- Radin, Dean
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2020-04-15
- Volume
- 11
- Pages
- 726-726
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7174750
- OpenAlex
- W3016737479
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Keywords
- observer consciousness, quantum consciousness, consciousness and quantum mechanics, experimental reproducibility
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
