5 ms·
Having every ‘observer’ also ‘participate’ seems to just make it even more intractably complex? Since presumably ‘participators’ can influence each other simult
by MichaelZuo 2y ago
Having every ‘observer’ also ‘participate’ seems to just make it even more intractably complex? Since presumably ‘participators’ can influence each other simultaneously.
So I just don’t see how any of these theories are attractive prospects, the infinite regress seems even more severe than superdeterminism theories.
It’s quite a shame this man got stuck on something that may be literally impossible to prove.
- mistermann 2y agoUnderstandability to era-bound humans is not a prerequisite for existence luckily.
- ko27 2y agoIt's not like we are any closer to resolving the measurement problem today. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss Wheeler, all alternative theories for this problem are radical or "unattractive".
- svachalek 2y agoIt's not like being radical or unattractive has anything to do with validity though.
- kstenerud 2y agoExcept that Wheeler got a LOT of things right, and this was in his wheelhouse. And he wasn't making a statement of fact on this, merely expressing his confusion that it wasn't making sense (yet). And then he died before he could figure it out. All we have left are little strands of his thoughts.
- kps 2y agoThere is no other kind of observation. You observe a photon when it and your retina (or device) participate in a physical interaction.
- TheOtherHobbes 2y agoDefine "you."
- Finnucane 2y agoIt also seems a little narcissistic to assume that humans are the only 'observers' or 'participants' who are determinative.
- akira2501 2y agoObserve is bad language. It implies a conscious act. "Incident" or "Interact" seem like better roots but the conjugations are even more overloaded in terms of human meaning.