OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT OF THINGS

[Meow Mix]

What is physical?

To have spatiotemporal extension and the property of mass-energy.

 

[atanu]

.

What I *do* believe is that consciousness is a property of certain assemblages of physical things like brains.

That is neither science nor good philosophy.

Interaction=awareness is your religion.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Basically quantum physics is going to eventually convince us that everything we thought was reality wasn't. And perhaps even give us a glimpse of God.

 

[sayak83]

And what about observations of object 1 and object 2?

Is there an object 3 that observes objects 1 and 2 …… and so on?

(In my opinion, no one here has understood the simple point of Conn Henry).

As per entanglement, an observation entangles object 1 and object 2 in a coherent wavefunction till a third object enters the picture. So suppose you have a universe with only one interaction with two objects. Then each object will be continually observing the other in an eternally extending wavefunction.

 

[atanu]

As per entanglement, an observation entangles object 1 and object 2 in a coherent wavefunction till a third object enters the picture. So suppose you have a universe with only one interaction with two objects. Then each object will be continually observing the other in an eternally extending wavefunction.

I asked you a common sense question and you answered with quantum woo.

1. If objects a and b observe each other what observe them both?

2. Please read the paper under ‘c’ in the OP?

…

 

[sayak83]

I asked you a common sense question and you answered with quantum woo.

1. If objects a and b observe each other what observe them both?

2. Please read the paper under ‘c’ in the OP?

…

In a universe with two objects ONLY, they observe each other and nothing observes them both.

 

[atanu]

In a universe with two objects ONLY, they observe each other and nothing observes them both.

That is odd for several reasons and you probably know that.

First, there is no such universe. All interactions that we record are interactions among objects, known by the subject.

Second, when two wood pieces strike against each other and fire begins, you cannot say that the INTERACTION IS THE CAUSE. There is a solid explanation of why fire begins — the process can be explained by using physical parameters. What explanation is there for ‘awareness’ arising from interaction of objects a and b? If a particular form of awareness arises from interaction of two bodies (for example, awareness that one is male and another female), the competence of discernment must exist.

Third. The papers point out that ‘entanglement’ assumes prior existence of objects, which is not tenable as per their results.

Basically, those who are opposing the point of the OP are using materialistic realism with classical physicalistic ideas and without offering any ‘mechanistic’ explanation.

The sad part is ‘andha bhakti’ of readers who applaud.



…

 

[sayak83]

That is odd for several reasons and you probably know that.

First, there is no such universe. All interactions that we record are interactions among objects, known by the subject.

Second, when two wood pieces strike against each other and fire begins, you cannot say that the INTERACTION IS THE CAUSE. There is a solid explanation of why fire begins — the process can be explained by using physical parameters. What explanation is there for ‘awareness’ arising from interaction of objects a and b? If a particular form of awareness arises from interaction of two bodies (for example, awareness that one is male and another female), the competence of discernment must exist.

Third. The papers point out that ‘entanglement’ assumes prior existence of objects, which is not tenable as per their results.

Basically, those who are opposing the point of the OP are using materialistic realism with classical physicalistic ideas and without offering any ‘mechanistic’ explanation.

The sad part is ‘andha bhakti’ of readers who applaud.



…

In your examples there are many many objects and interactions. At such a scale stable objects with stable properties emerge due to decoherence of the wavefunctions. That emergence also does not need any subject, only the fact of a large number of interaction events.

Observation does not require awareness. In physics observation merely means the transfer of information about one entity or event to another entity or event.

The number of objects and properties of the objects depend on the type of interaction event happening. That is the sense in which the interaction is primary...you cannot abstract away the objects and its properties from the interactions in which they take part.

 

[atanu]

In your examples there are many many objects and interactions. At such a scale stable objects with stable properties emerge due to decoherence of the wavefunctions. That emergence also does not need any subject, only the fact of a large number of interaction events.

Observation does not require awareness. In physics observation merely means the transfer of information about one entity or event to another entity or event.

The number of objects and properties of the objects depend on the type of interaction event happening. That is the sense in which the interaction is primary...you cannot abstract away the objects and its properties from the interactions in which they take part.

Many particles? Where you got that?

We are going in circles without considering the import of the papers that put questions over realist understanding. But you are bringing in examples that presume realism.

I am not saying that the papers are the TRUTH. But if they are, the implications are stupendous — Ido not think that anyone here has considered that perspective.
….

Furthermore, I am not convinced that I have to agree to the current explanations of physics as the TRUTH. Conn Henry’s essay is about that.
…

 

[sayak83]

Many particles? Where you got that?

We are going in circles without considering the import of the papers that put questions over realist understanding. But you are bringing in examples that presume realism.

I am not saying that the papers are the TRUTH. But if they are, the implications are stupendous — Ido not think that anyone here has considered that perspective.
….

Furthermore, I am not convinced that I have to agree to the current explanations of physics as the TRUTH. Conn Henry’s essay is about that.
…

Lighting a match involve many many many quadrillions of microscopic particles with equally gargantuan number of interaction events between them. In such cases the quantum wavefunction will rapidly decohere to produce classical world of distinct particles with specific property values. This can be shown both mathematically and experimentally. Quantum theory predicts that for most large scale interactions involving many components and many events, the output will be objects with definite classical properties. Only for a small number of interactions and when very special conditions are met in large scale interactions, will the output of the interaction still preserve the superposition features (cross terms) of the wavefunction.
I read the papers. I am not seeing anything there. The 3rd paper for example says that QM formulations are valid for a single particle even without entanglement with a 2nd particle. We know that. That is not very surprising, but expt. demonstration is nice.

 

[Polymath257]

What is physical?

Anything in spacetime involving energy.

 

[Polymath257]

And what about observations of object 1 and object 2?

Is there an object 3 that observes objects 1 and 2 …… and so on?

(In my opinion, no one here has understood the simple point of Conn Henry).

If object3 interacts with object2, then object3 has observed object2.

 

[Polymath257]

Many particles? Where you got that?

We are going in circles without considering the import of the papers that put questions over realist understanding. But you are bringing in examples that presume realism.

I am not saying that the papers are the TRUTH. But if they are, the implications are stupendous — Ido not think that anyone here has considered that perspective.
….

Furthermore, I am not convinced that I have to agree to the current explanations of physics as the TRUTH. Conn Henry’s essay is about that.
…

We have understood what Conn said. We just disagree. he gets the particulars wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

That is neither science nor good philosophy.

Interaction=awareness is your religion.

No, Interaction=observation. Awareness is another thing entirely. Consciousness is something that happens in very complicated physical systems.

That is odd for several reasons and you probably know that.

First, there is no such universe. All interactions that we record are interactions among objects, known by the subject.

He was clarifying so you could get the point. Interaction = observation.

Second, when two wood pieces strike against each other and fire begins, you cannot say that the INTERACTION IS THE CAUSE.

Absolutely you can. And should. The interaction produced the friction, which started the fire. if there was no interaction, there would be no fire.

There is a solid explanation of why fire begins — the process can be explained by using physical parameters. What explanation is there for ‘awareness’ arising from interaction of objects a and b? If a particular form of awareness arises from interaction of two bodies (for example, awareness that one is male and another female), the competence of discernment must exist.

Awareness has nothing to do with this. Awareness doesn't happen at the quantum level. it happens at the level of organisms and neural networks.

Third. The papers point out that ‘entanglement’ assumes prior existence of objects, which is not tenable as per their results.

And the paper is wrong. Entanglement certainly does NOT assume a realist view of things. In fact, if anything, it proposes exactly the opposite. Things do NOT have definite properties at all times.

Basically, those who are opposing the point of the OP are using materialistic realism with classical physicalistic ideas and without offering any ‘mechanistic’ explanation.

The expectation of a 'mechanistic' explanation is part of the classical way of looking at things. That is NOT how things are seen today.

The notions of physicalism have changed over time in response to what we have learned from quantum mechanics. We no longer thing of solid balls colliding with each other.

Realism (that objects have definite properties at all times) is known to be wrong. That was a shock, but does NOT negate physicalism nor even naturalism (which you have yet to say which version you are arguing against).

The sad part is ‘andha bhakti’ of readers who applaud.



…

 

[WalterTrull]

Can you explain please?

Well.. It seemed like you were going for a mental universe, then you cited physical brain function. That's not a mental universe.

 

[Ostronomos]

I've no doubt you had the experiences you describe. What I doubt is your interpretation of those experiences. We *know* how the brain can process certain types of information incorrectly (optical illusions just being the simplest case). So, to go from your experience to an actual belief that God did, in fact, appear, is the leap I doubt.

Despite your attempts to dismiss the events of that day you have no clue what I did prior to that quantum level event.

Information is a simple result of any causal event: the 'effect' is information about the 'cause'. No minds are required.

WRONG! Information is anything that has a read/ write operation in its inherent properties.

 

[Polymath257]

Despite your attempts to dismiss the events of that day you have no clue what I did prior to that quantum level event.

I have my guesses.

WRONG! Information is anything that has a read/ write operation in its inherent properties.

I disagree. For example, a dinosaur bone in the ground carries information. There is no inherent read/write operation for a dinosaur bone. But it still has a wealth of information about how the dinosaur lived.

if you think about it, I believe you will see that all pieces of information *are* information because they are produced by causal reactions in a way that identifies the cause from the effect. In the case of hard drives, the causal interactions tend to be electromagnetic and the read/write properties are as well. But that is only for the type of information seen on hard drives. There are many other situations where information is produced and propagated.

 

[rational experiences]

Rationally a quote what if everyone died in the one same moment.

Where then is any condition you agree upon as just a living human born yet dies one day?

First and only form self human observer.

Reality of conscious self advice is first.

We are conscious innate of self then of other observed interactive humans. Who science pretends by self conscious status is a God.

In rational observation a human observes self first then all other humans in variable living growing developing dying bodies.

Rationality of life is first.

Creation status constantly changing cooling evolving reforming decaying.

 

[atanu]

Well.. It seemed like you were going for a mental universe, then you cited physical brain function. That's not a mental universe.

But I was opposing it in another way -- giving an example of a logical difficulty.

 

[rational experiences]

I have my guesses.




I disagree. For example, a dinosaur bone in the ground carries information. There is no inherent read/write operation for a dinosaur bone. But it still has a wealth of information about how the dinosaur lived.

if you think about it, I believe you will see that all pieces of information *are* information because they are produced by causal reactions in a way that identifies the cause from the effect. In the case of hard drives, the causal interactions tend to be electromagnetic and the read/write properties are as well. But that is only for the type of information seen on hard drives. There are many other situations where information is produced and propagated.

Meaning dead bones I pretend in theism return from its dead state by my visionary theism claiming by my vision I believe what it had lived as and was created as. By what it did and how it lived behaved as if I am its creator knowing it's lived life.

To then realise visionary dinosaur recording transmitting real idea as clouds own images of dinosaurs also.

Dinosaurs died in a science explanation of various ground studies.

Father said UFO accumulator in void channel empty is held. Particles broken off passing asteroids. Part of it as a fake asteroid hit the science temple blew a hole inside machine. Ended reacting.

As it broke mass inside the UFO accumulator the ufo changed and shot off blasted out making ground holes elsewhere.

The visionary science a UFO asteroid killed dinosaurs. A form of controlled cosmic cause.

Historic how a collider science blew up pyramid machine as machine by a machine side hole. A space opened in earth mass. Meanwhile larger UFO bodies blasted life.

Reason mass only opens into holes.

Reason God earth radiation release gets blocked by UFO taking up vacuum position so it can't release naturally.

Travels elsewhere so sets gases on fire that burns into cold accumulator UFO asteroid formation.

How chunks get released.

Why dinosaurs died snap frozen. Some were burnt to death.

Asteroid stone in space form is nothing like a UFO stone asteroid that holds radiation etched earth communicators from design earth machine communicator.

How you can tell how life died if you find the stone evidence.

Why science thesis observations are not of things as visionary is a pre existing heaven recording. Holographic memory.