The Observer

[geordief]

I have heard that ,in relativity (and QM?) the (sentient) observer and the mechanical mechanism are equivalent.

This comes up from time to time but not as often as I might expect.

 

Is that because it is a mundane observation (ironically   )  or is there more to be mined from it (perhaps  my lack of intellectual curiosity has not kept me abreast with current thinking around this) ?

For example is it related to questions such as why we cannot "get outside" of the universe and look at it as a whole (in the mind's eye) but are forever condemned to be looking at ourselves (through a special part of the anatomy possibly)  ,which seems like a logical contradiction to me.

 

 

[StringJunky]

24 minutes ago, geordief said:

I have heard that ,in relativity (and QM?) the (sentient) observer and the mechanical mechanism are equivalent.

This comes up from time to time but not as often as I might expect.

 

Is that because it is a mundane observation (ironically   )  or is there more to be mined from it (perhaps  my lack of intellectual curiosity has not kept me abreast with current thinking around this) ?

For example is it related to questions such as why we cannot "get outside" of the universe and look at it as a whole (in the mind's eye) but are forever condemned to be looking at ourselves (through a special part of the anatomy possibly)  ,which seems like a logical contradiction to me.

 

 

The 'observer' is whatever you are measuring with.

[geordief]

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The 'observer' is whatever you are measuring with.

Are you saying the (thinking)observer is not equivalent to the "whatever you are measuring it with"?

 

Is there a role for interpretation that is distinct from the data  or do the two phenomena blend into one (or are two sides of the same coin?)

 

I know there are people who point out that U existed before there were humans (sentient creatures) to assess it  and I agree..but my predisposition is that this sentience may be built into the apparently insentient U as ,perhaps an emergent phenomenon (piece of "jargon" I have now picked up😃  )

[dimreepr]

we're just looking and interpreting the results, we humans Are the emergent phenomenon... who else is looking?😉

[geordief]

I don't want to derail my own thread.I am just trying to ask whether the "observer" question ,as I frame it has any scientific import or is it just an "angels on the head of an needle" topic really

[Strange]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

I have heard that ,in relativity (and QM?) the (sentient) observer and the mechanical mechanism are equivalent.

It is just the interaction required by an observation or measurement that matters. If an interaction occurs, but is not part of a measurement or observation, then it has exactly the same effect(*), so "sentience" is not an issue.

 

(*) This does, of course, raise the philosophical "tree in a forest" question of how we would know it has the same effect. And in quantum theory, this is what leads to the Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment (and all the extensions, such as if his lab assistant opens the box but no one opens the door to the lab, then is the whole laboratory including the assistant in a superposition of states). As none of that makes any practical difference, I think we can ignore it.

[geordief]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

we're just looking and interpreting the results, we humans Are the emergent phenomenon... who else is looking?😉

I think the standard reply might be that we are U looking at itself

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, geordief said:

I think the standard reply might be that we are U looking at itself

Is it?

Edited February 17, 2020 by dimreepr

[geordief]

 

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is it?

Well maybe not standard but I have heard it and it seems to fit like a glove(can mean everything or nothing)

Edited February 17, 2020 by geordief

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, geordief said:

 

Well maybe not standard but I have heard it and it seems to fit like a glove(can mean everything or nothing)

Who's U?

[geordief]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Who's U?

Is that not standard and shorthand way to write "the Universe"  ?

[dimreepr]

"the Universe" does not...

[geordief]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

"the Universe" does not...

Did I say or imply it did?(actually might have misinterpreted your post)

 

You are just saying that U does not "look at itself" when we look at it?

 

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by geordief

[dimreepr]

Does it matter?

[geordief]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Does it matter?

Obviously to me ,perhaps not to you . To others ,I can't say except that it seems to matter to some.

 

My question at the outset ,and repeated later was whether it might matter to scientific research.....

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, geordief said:

For example is it related to questions such as why we cannot "get outside" of the universe and look at it as a whole (in the mind's eye) but are forever condemned to be looking at ourselves (through a special part of the anatomy possibly)  ,which seems like a logical contradiction to me.

Does it matter? logically, the impossible should be ignored...🙃

[geordief]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Does it matter? logically, the impossible should be ignored...🙃

I thought the mathematical construct  "i" as the square root of minus one was a logical impossibility at first ( still don't really understand it)

 

Same with curvature of spacetime  it seems impossible and yet the model works.

 

We can't afford to ignore the seemingly illogical ,Khomeini,the election of Trump etc

 

You have made your point that unlikely things should attract  less attention .This is one of the very few times I have raised this topic on this forum (if at all)

Strange has half convinced me that there is  no practical benefit in the question.. 

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by geordief

[MigL]

Strange has given you the accepted thinking of the scientific community.

A photon hitting a photographic plate will show an image whether a human ( or other ) consciousness looks at it or not.

Hint-  Getting into a metaphysical argument with Dimreepr is best done when you are stoned.
          Sometimes you wanna hug him, sometimes you wanna strangle him   .

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, geordief said:

I thought the mathematical construct  "i" as the square root of minus one was a logical impossibility at first ( still don't really understand it)

I guess this is because we learn, from a very early age, that numbers are things we use to count physical objects with. It takes a while to realise they are abstract concepts based on certain properties (which happens to make them useful for counting things). And then it is a small step to different types of numbers based on different proerties.

Or you can take a geometric approach to understanding complex numbers, rather than a purely arithmetic one. It makes more sense then.

17 minutes ago, geordief said:

Same with curvature of spacetime  it seems impossible and yet the model works.

"The model works" is the key point. It doesn't necessarily mean that the curvature is real. (After all, we know think of the Newtonian "force" of gravity as not being a real force.)

 

[Mordred]

Another important detail is there is no validity to an observer outside the universe. Nor is there any observer outside causality. In order to have any observer you must be within causal range. This obviously includes any form of interaction or measurement.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Mordred

[Markus Hanke]

16 hours ago, geordief said:

I have heard that ,in relativity (and QM?) the (sentient) observer and the mechanical mechanism are equivalent.

The mind does not have direct access to the “external world” (for lack of a better term - you know what I mean here), it only has access to a filtered and pre-processed version of whatever data the sensory apparatus delivers. As such, there is always a “mechanism” involved in any observation; whether this is mechanical (i.e. lab apparatus) or biological (i.e. sense organs) in nature, the underlying process is the same one in both cases, so there is no difference.