4 ms·

Measured by conscious observers, and results perceived by conscious observers. There is no way around it. The laws of physics are “universally” agreed truths a

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
        >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. I am failing to see the distinction here. If your only conception of "reality" is through your sensual perceptions, how can you know anything beyond that? How does reality then differ from mental conception of your sensual receptors? To me this is equivalent to saying, "there is a spiritual world that doesn't interact with anything and we cant prove it but it exists". The only thing I can think of is that reality is shared among several observers, who all agree on it. This is why I brought up the hypothetical scenario of two scientists who disagreed on whether the detector turned on at t=1 or t=2. If you were the only being on this planet so that no one could disagree with you, and you for some reason were high on LSD for the entirely of your life and saw flying rocks, would that not be your reality? Every scientific test you do would fit your findings, as perceived and evaluated by you. If there was a community of such people who never saw a rock standing still, what would be the real truth? And if you say "but there is still a reality, none of those people would just know it", then I can ask, how do you know we don't fit that same bill, where some other observer could look at us and say "those guys are all seeing an illusion, its actually this way" >This is a red herring. We may never know who is right; that is different from saying that there is no reality to know. But what determines who is right? That is my question. What answer can you give me besides "a conscious observer?", or "a collection of conscious observers who all agree". And if you can't determine who is right, what meaning is there to it being reality? Why is one conscious experience any more correct than the other?
  - vonjuice 3y ago
    No that's not what is being said. The laws of physics are a mental model. There is something they map on to, but we can only form an incomplete map. They're a reduction in order to understand, and thus as much as they're formed by our observations, they're equally informed by our biases and limitations.
  - vonjuice 3y ago
    You're making a fundamental mistake in comprehending this. You're confusing the map for the territory. When I say the laws of physics I mean the map, and you're thinking about what they point to, the territory. What is the most fundamental fact? What is the first step, from which everything then can be derived? That first step is the fact that there's something observing. That observer can construct a theory. That theory can posit "actually, there's matter, and there seems to be matter which does not possess this same capacity of observation, therefore this inert matter must have formed first, and then [insert hypothesis of your choice] that's how the observer arose". That's valid. However, it's not a fact, and it's not the only theory. The theory I'm entertaining instead, is this: the observing phenomenon is as much a fundamental part of the universe as gravity. The reason some things don't seem to possess it is that we can't directly perceive other's observing phenomena, and it's only when this phenomena binds with matter in such a way (time, appearance, scale, complexity, frequency) that it can communicate with similar binding phenomena, then there is recognition: "you have a face, you're smiling, you seem to be alive, so I'm going to assign the observer trait to you". Now that I recognize other observers we can communicate and form a theory, and see what we can agree on. Then and only then I can say "well let's pretend that there are no observers and see what we can agree on". And thus the laws of physics are born, as a mental model.
    - geye1234 3y ago
      > You're making a fundamental mistake in comprehending this. You're confusing the map for the territory. When I say the laws of physics I mean the map, and you're thinking about what they point to, the territory. I agree with the map-territory distinction -- but the laws of physics (or, better, the "way things behave") is primarily in the territory, and only derivatively in the map. Our map may be more or less accurate, but the map presupposes the territory. Otherwise, nothing we can say about reality is more or less true than anything else, and absurdity results (like the hydrogen-oxygen example I gave before). If the way things behave is solely a property of the map, not of the territory, then it must be the case that we can't predict what will happen when we react hydrogen with oxygen. But we can predict this, and therefore the way things behave is a property of the territory. The map that says hydrogen+oxygen=water+heat is a better map -- that is, closer to the territory -- than one that says hydrogen+oxygen=chocolate bunny. But again, better vs worse map presupposes the territory, and presupposes that the stuff on the map points to real stuff on the territory, however imperfectly. Are you in agreement with this as far as it goes? Do you agree with my premise that we can predict what will happen when we react H and O? > What is the most fundamental fact? What is the first step, from which everything then can be derived? That first step is the fact that there's something observing. That observer can construct a theory. Surely the fundamental fact is existence? Without this, there can be no observation, no observer, and no observed object. These things, like any individual thing, presuppose existence. Further, your statement presupposes other things: for example, the law of non-contradiction (which is a facet of existence). Your statement says that there is a 'thing', that it observes, and that it constructs a theory. It must therefore take for granted that there is not nothing; that the 'thing' doesn't not observe; and that it doesn't not construct a theory. Otherwise the statement is meaningless. This is just the beginning of what I could say, but your argument, like any argument, presupposes existence, the laws of logic, non-contradiction, the distinction of one object from another (the law of identity), etc. So we can't take an observer as a fundamental fact. More generally, we can't take any particular thing as the fundamental fact. Universal knowledge precedes particular knowledge. Existence in general precedes existence of the particular. I'm not sure if this directly affects our disagreement, but it might help understand where I'm coming from :-)
- 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)

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
      >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. I am failing to see the distinction here. If your only conception of "reality" is through your sensual perceptions, how can you know anything beyond that? How does reality then differ from mental conception of your sensual receptors? To me this is equivalent to saying, "there is a spiritual world that doesn't interact with anything and we cant prove it but it exists". The only thing I can think of is that reality is shared among several observers, who all agree on it. This is why I brought up the hypothetical scenario of two scientists who disagreed on whether the detector turned on at t=1 or t=2. If you were the only being on this planet so that no one could disagree with you, and you for some reason were high on LSD for the entirely of your life and saw flying rocks, would that not be your reality? Every scientific test you do would fit your findings, as perceived and evaluated by you. If there was a community of such people who never saw a rock standing still, what would be the real truth? And if you say "but there is still a reality, none of those people would just know it", then I can ask, how do you know we don't fit that same bill, where some other observer could look at us and say "those guys are all seeing an illusion, its actually this way" >This is a red herring. We may never know who is right; that is different from saying that there is no reality to know. But what determines who is right? That is my question. What answer can you give me besides "a conscious observer?", or "a collection of conscious observers who all agree". And if you can't determine who is right, what meaning is there to it being reality? Why is one conscious experience any more correct than the other?
- vonjuice 3y ago
  No that's not what is being said. The laws of physics are a mental model. There is something they map on to, but we can only form an incomplete map. They're a reduction in order to understand, and thus as much as they're formed by our observations, they're equally informed by our biases and limitations.
- vonjuice 3y ago
  You're making a fundamental mistake in comprehending this. You're confusing the map for the territory. When I say the laws of physics I mean the map, and you're thinking about what they point to, the territory. What is the most fundamental fact? What is the first step, from which everything then can be derived? That first step is the fact that there's something observing. That observer can construct a theory. That theory can posit "actually, there's matter, and there seems to be matter which does not possess this same capacity of observation, therefore this inert matter must have formed first, and then [insert hypothesis of your choice] that's how the observer arose". That's valid. However, it's not a fact, and it's not the only theory. The theory I'm entertaining instead, is this: the observing phenomenon is as much a fundamental part of the universe as gravity. The reason some things don't seem to possess it is that we can't directly perceive other's observing phenomena, and it's only when this phenomena binds with matter in such a way (time, appearance, scale, complexity, frequency) that it can communicate with similar binding phenomena, then there is recognition: "you have a face, you're smiling, you seem to be alive, so I'm going to assign the observer trait to you". Now that I recognize other observers we can communicate and form a theory, and see what we can agree on. Then and only then I can say "well let's pretend that there are no observers and see what we can agree on". And thus the laws of physics are born, as a mental model.
  - geye1234 3y ago
    > You're making a fundamental mistake in comprehending this. You're confusing the map for the territory. When I say the laws of physics I mean the map, and you're thinking about what they point to, the territory. I agree with the map-territory distinction -- but the laws of physics (or, better, the "way things behave") is primarily in the territory, and only derivatively in the map. Our map may be more or less accurate, but the map presupposes the territory. Otherwise, nothing we can say about reality is more or less true than anything else, and absurdity results (like the hydrogen-oxygen example I gave before). If the way things behave is solely a property of the map, not of the territory, then it must be the case that we can't predict what will happen when we react hydrogen with oxygen. But we can predict this, and therefore the way things behave is a property of the territory. The map that says hydrogen+oxygen=water+heat is a better map -- that is, closer to the territory -- than one that says hydrogen+oxygen=chocolate bunny. But again, better vs worse map presupposes the territory, and presupposes that the stuff on the map points to real stuff on the territory, however imperfectly. Are you in agreement with this as far as it goes? Do you agree with my premise that we can predict what will happen when we react H and O? > What is the most fundamental fact? What is the first step, from which everything then can be derived? That first step is the fact that there's something observing. That observer can construct a theory. Surely the fundamental fact is existence? Without this, there can be no observation, no observer, and no observed object. These things, like any individual thing, presuppose existence. Further, your statement presupposes other things: for example, the law of non-contradiction (which is a facet of existence). Your statement says that there is a 'thing', that it observes, and that it constructs a theory. It must therefore take for granted that there is not nothing; that the 'thing' doesn't not observe; and that it doesn't not construct a theory. Otherwise the statement is meaningless. This is just the beginning of what I could say, but your argument, like any argument, presupposes existence, the laws of logic, non-contradiction, the distinction of one object from another (the law of identity), etc. So we can't take an observer as a fundamental fact. More generally, we can't take any particular thing as the fundamental fact. Universal knowledge precedes particular knowledge. Existence in general precedes existence of the particular. I'm not sure if this directly affects our disagreement, but it might help understand where I'm coming from :-)
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)