6 ms·

The laws of physics are a mental model created by consciousness to understand the world experienced as beings separate from it. To subjugate the creator to tha

The laws of physics are a mental model created by consciousness to understand the world experienced as beings separate from it. To subjugate the creator to that which it created is a bit funny.

pixl97 3y ago
The laws of physics are measurable constants that if the measurement is executed anywhere in the universe [1] will yield the same results[2]. [1] that's in the same phase state as us, inside a black hole or microseconds after the big bang may derive a different answer. [2] up to the uncertainty limit
- andoando 3y ago
  Measured by conscious observers, and results perceived by conscious observers. There is no way around it. The laws of physics are “universally” agreed truths about certain mental phenomena experienced by the conscious observers that conscious observers have so far interacted with.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    So two hydrogen atoms bonding with an oxygen and forming a water molecule and releasing 'heat' only happens when a conscious observer is around? Interesting universe you live in. I, personally, enjoy a universe independant of the whims of observers.
    - geye1234 3y ago
      > So two hydrogen atoms bonding with an oxygen and forming a water molecule and releasing 'heat' only happens when a conscious observer is around? The GP's arguments lead to greater weirdness than that. If the laws of science are mere mental phenomena (which I think is what he's saying), then we have no reason to think that things will ever behave in one way rather than another, because our thoughts about things point to nothing beyond our own minds. If he were right, then reacting hydrogen with oxygen may produce heat and water; alternatively it may produce a chocolate cake with orange candles and a golf ball in the middle. Because the laws of science would exist only in our minds and wouldn't be about reality, we'd have no way of knowing: one prediction would be as rational, or irrational, as the other. Since reality isn't like this, we know he's wrong, and that the laws of physics exist independently of observers.
      - andoando 3y ago
        >If he were right, then reacting hydrogen with oxygen may produce heat and water; alternatively it may produce a chocolate cake with orange candles and a golf ball in the middle. Because the laws of science would exist only in our minds and wouldn't be about reality, we'd have no way of knowing: one prediction would be as rational, or irrational, as the other. Everything we know is through the observation and mental formulation of our mind. This is just an unavoidable fact. We make proofs of physical phenomena entirely through observation with our sensory receptors. Whatever scientific experiment you have, whether its watching a plant grow in a certain way or particle collision in the Hydron collider, is through the beliefs of an observer. The question in my view, is how universal these mental conceptions are. After all, we all similarly agree on some basic observations. There is a ball here. The ball blew up, this detector turned on and off at these times, etc. If however, there were hypothetically some other observer that did not agree with you on these basic beliefs, such that they said that the detector turned on at time 2 and not 1, then what is the reality? What method do you have to confirm what is reality when two observers disagree on what was observed? It is easy to throw this thought to the wind and say, there can be other perception of reality possible, but that to me seems faith, not logic.
        geye1234 3y ago
        Clearly, we know reality through our senses and our ideas. That is uncontroversial. The problem is when one says (as I think you are) that our sensual perceptions and ideas are all we know, and that we can reasonably doubt that they ever refer to reality. We know reality by means of our senses and ideas. We don't know our senses and ideas as such. To repeat myself: if your claim is true, then the person who says "reacting hydrogen and oxygen will produce water and heat" can be no more, and no less, correct than the person who says "reacting hydrogen and oxygen will produce jello in the shape of George Washington's nose". Because if, as I think you claim, we know nothing but the "mental formulation of our mind", then our thoughts don't point to reality; and if this is true, we can't predict anything about reality. And therefore each of these two claims about chemistry is as valid as the other. Do you agree with this? > If however, there were hypothetically some other observer that did not agree with you on these basic beliefs, such that they said that the detector turned on at time 2 and not 1, then what is the reality? What method do you have to confirm what is reality when two observers disagree on what was observed? This is a red herring. We may never know who is right; that is different from saying that there is no reality to know.
    - andoando 3y ago
      No I am not saying that things don't happen when there is no observer around. I am saying, `what` actually happened is entirely based on perception of mind, and is completely subject to interpretation. To give an analogy, imagine the universe really was a collection of bits.[0,1,2,3,4]. We are some program which give means meaning to these bits. Another program on the other hand interprets these bits another way, perhaps even in a language completely incomprehensible to us. The state of the universe can change to another set of bits, but each observer could still form completely different sets of perceptions, or change of perceptions.
    - vonjuice 3y ago
      And where do you find such a universe?
  - krapp 3y ago
    "observation" in terms of quantum mechanics doesn't require a conscious observer, only some interaction which affects the result. From the Wikipedia page on the observer effect[0] and a cited quote therein from Werner Heisenberg[1]. Despite the "observer effect" in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment's results have been interpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] However, the need for the "observer" to be conscious (versus merely existent, as in a unicellular microorganism) is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process. "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137[1] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

The laws of physics are a mental model created by consciousness to understand the world experienced as beings separate from it. To subjugate the creator to that which it created is a bit funny.

pixl97 3y ago

The laws of physics are measurable constants that if the measurement is executed anywhere in the universe [1] will yield the same results[2]. [1] that's in the same phase state as us, inside a black hole or microseconds after the big bang may derive a different answer. [2] up to the uncertainty limit

andoando 3y ago
Measured by conscious observers, and results perceived by conscious observers. There is no way around it. The laws of physics are “universally” agreed truths about certain mental phenomena experienced by the conscious observers that conscious observers have so far interacted with.
- pixl97 3y ago
  So two hydrogen atoms bonding with an oxygen and forming a water molecule and releasing 'heat' only happens when a conscious observer is around? Interesting universe you live in. I, personally, enjoy a universe independant of the whims of observers.
  - geye1234 3y ago
    > So two hydrogen atoms bonding with an oxygen and forming a water molecule and releasing 'heat' only happens when a conscious observer is around? The GP's arguments lead to greater weirdness than that. If the laws of science are mere mental phenomena (which I think is what he's saying), then we have no reason to think that things will ever behave in one way rather than another, because our thoughts about things point to nothing beyond our own minds. If he were right, then reacting hydrogen with oxygen may produce heat and water; alternatively it may produce a chocolate cake with orange candles and a golf ball in the middle. Because the laws of science would exist only in our minds and wouldn't be about reality, we'd have no way of knowing: one prediction would be as rational, or irrational, as the other. Since reality isn't like this, we know he's wrong, and that the laws of physics exist independently of observers.
    - andoando 3y ago
      >If he were right, then reacting hydrogen with oxygen may produce heat and water; alternatively it may produce a chocolate cake with orange candles and a golf ball in the middle. Because the laws of science would exist only in our minds and wouldn't be about reality, we'd have no way of knowing: one prediction would be as rational, or irrational, as the other. Everything we know is through the observation and mental formulation of our mind. This is just an unavoidable fact. We make proofs of physical phenomena entirely through observation with our sensory receptors. Whatever scientific experiment you have, whether its watching a plant grow in a certain way or particle collision in the Hydron collider, is through the beliefs of an observer. The question in my view, is how universal these mental conceptions are. After all, we all similarly agree on some basic observations. There is a ball here. The ball blew up, this detector turned on and off at these times, etc. If however, there were hypothetically some other observer that did not agree with you on these basic beliefs, such that they said that the detector turned on at time 2 and not 1, then what is the reality? What method do you have to confirm what is reality when two observers disagree on what was observed? It is easy to throw this thought to the wind and say, there can be other perception of reality possible, but that to me seems faith, not logic.
      - geye1234 3y ago
        Clearly, we know reality through our senses and our ideas. That is uncontroversial. The problem is when one says (as I think you are) that our sensual perceptions and ideas are all we know, and that we can reasonably doubt that they ever refer to reality. We know reality by means of our senses and ideas. We don't know our senses and ideas as such. To repeat myself: if your claim is true, then the person who says "reacting hydrogen and oxygen will produce water and heat" can be no more, and no less, correct than the person who says "reacting hydrogen and oxygen will produce jello in the shape of George Washington's nose". Because if, as I think you claim, we know nothing but the "mental formulation of our mind", then our thoughts don't point to reality; and if this is true, we can't predict anything about reality. And therefore each of these two claims about chemistry is as valid as the other. Do you agree with this? > If however, there were hypothetically some other observer that did not agree with you on these basic beliefs, such that they said that the detector turned on at time 2 and not 1, then what is the reality? What method do you have to confirm what is reality when two observers disagree on what was observed? This is a red herring. We may never know who is right; that is different from saying that there is no reality to know.
  - andoando 3y ago
    No I am not saying that things don't happen when there is no observer around. I am saying, `what` actually happened is entirely based on perception of mind, and is completely subject to interpretation. To give an analogy, imagine the universe really was a collection of bits.[0,1,2,3,4]. We are some program which give means meaning to these bits. Another program on the other hand interprets these bits another way, perhaps even in a language completely incomprehensible to us. The state of the universe can change to another set of bits, but each observer could still form completely different sets of perceptions, or change of perceptions.
  - vonjuice 3y ago
    And where do you find such a universe?
- krapp 3y ago
  "observation" in terms of quantum mechanics doesn't require a conscious observer, only some interaction which affects the result. From the Wikipedia page on the observer effect[0] and a cited quote therein from Werner Heisenberg[1]. Despite the "observer effect" in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment's results have been interpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] However, the need for the "observer" to be conscious (versus merely existent, as in a unicellular microorganism) is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process. "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137[1] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)