Are observers physical?

[Loren Booda]

If so, what physical parameters define them?

[Serene_Chaos]

i voted no, but i believe that they may need a physical body in order to exist

[QMistic]

Ok, I voted no. My first thought was, if we are talking about a physical universe, what purpose would there be for a none physical entity to force the wave collapse? But then I remembered what I have been reading by Ken Wilber, Valorie Hunt, Deepak Chropra, and realized I had not converted what I was learning to my own reality. Hmm, Is this a step toward defining the observer, by agreeing that he is not physical?

Steve

[Michael Dmitriyev]

If so, what physical parameters define them?
I think that the observer this information concept but not physical.

[El Hombre Invisible]

Voted yes. The question didn't single out conscious observers, so I'm counting any particle or system that changes upon interaction with another particle or system as an observer (i.e. somehow records the observation via a change of state).

If we wanted to get more picky, a more common definition of the word 'observer' is simply a system like the one above with the capacity to not only observe but to be consciously or subconsciously aware of it. While the mechanisms of consciousness are not fully understood, those aspects of it that are or that have well-founded theoretical explanations are entirely physical AFAIK. We understand it more and more as further study progresses, so there is no reason I see to believe that when a full understanding of consciousness is arrived at, that understanding will be of a fully physically-explained consciousness.

I cannot, then, answer the second question beyond 'at a fundemental level, the limitations of the laws of physics' - taking the view that all fundemental laws of nature are laws of physics and all other laws of nature are emergent from more fundemental laws of physics.

[net_nubie]

I've voted yes, mainly because whenever we solve any problem, we assume that the observer is present. Also if the observer is not physical, how can it 'observe'; if it is not physical, then why talk about it in physics.

[sameandnot]

you are essentially assuming that "what is", the Reality, is fundamentally physical. i say this, because you must be referring to the "problem" of QM, where the act of observing affects the outcome of "physical" events. therefore, i say, you are in assumption that the universe is basically "physical", and that an observer must, in fact, be "physical". for if the observer is non-physical, then Reality, too, it follows, is non-physical. see?

[El Hombre Invisible]

you are essentially assuming that "what is", the Reality, is fundamentally physical. i say this, because you must be referring to the "problem" of QM, where the act of observing affects the outcome of "physical" events. therefore, i say, you are in assumption that the universe is basically "physical", and that an observer must, in fact, be "physical". for if the observer is non-physical, then Reality, too, it follows, is non-physical. see?
Yes, that's basically my view too. If an entity suspected of being non-physical were to interact with a physical entity in the same way that another physical entity does, what is it that makes it non-physical? So if there is a non-physical reality out there, it seems logical we would never be aware of it in the way we are aware of consciousness or information, and so have no reason to think it exists (whether it does or not).

[Loren Booda]

If measurement involves physical interaction with the observer, as QM seems to indicate, why has the magnitude of that action upon the observer never itself been measured?

[El Hombre Invisible]

If measurement involves physical interaction with the observer, as QM seems to indicate, why has the magnitude of that action upon the observer never itself been measured?

I'm not sure I understand the question. First off, a physical interaction between the observer and the subject is not AFIAK a QM notion. If you observe the moon, there is a physical interaction twixt you and it mediated by light. This is as true in classical physics as it is in QM.

But I don't understand what you mean about not measuring the magnitude of action upon the observer during observation. Can you provide an example where the change in the observer isn't measurable?

[mmarko]

Forgive what may seem like sophism.
If an observer exists it exists in the universe. The universe is physical.
It is the definition of physicality. Therfore an observer is physical.

As Wittgenstein discusses, only the physical can be discussed. The meta-physical cannot. Therefore a discussion of existence outside the logical space of existence is not something that can be defined in order to be considered.

If an obsserver were not physical, the observer would be irrelevent. There is no definition I know of to descibe the existence of a thing outside the system in which all existence takes place.

There is no meta-position possible to make an extra-system description of the universe, therefore it is impossible to describe this system in terms of anything else. An observer which was not physical in this system would probably be defined as physical one or more meta positions (using a meta-language) upward. So within a wider hierarchy of references our "non-physical" observer would still be physical even if we called it not physical.

Everybody loves somebody sometime.

[nemosum]

I agree with mmarko. And besides, the whole point of physics is to determine how the universe works, through experimentation etc. You can't experiment with something that is not physical, therefore trying to do so gets you no where really fast.

[alfredblase]

I voted yes. Since the universe is seen only from my point of view, and since I believe that I cannot interact with non-physical entities, (try and prove me wrong), then non-physical entities do not exist, (try and prove me wrong). So yes from my point of view, (the only one that exists, or at any rate the only one that counts) an observer has to be physical (try proving me wrong). There may be a non-physical observer out there somewhere but it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned, and never will unless I go completely insane or as the case may be, unless I recover my sanity.

[QMistic]

So yes from my point of view, (the only one that exists, or at any rate the only one that counts) an observer has to be physical (try proving me wrong). There may be a non-physical observer out there somewhere but it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned, and never will unless I go completely insane or as the case may be, unless I recover my sanity.

Alfred,

So you are saying that you are 'physical' and you are the 'observer', therefore all observers must be physical. Then you ask others to prove you wrong in this subjective, inductive reasoning. :smile: Do you not first need to prove that it is your being 'physical' that qualifies you as an observer.

Let me ask just what physical part of you did the 'observing'? Was it your eyes which recieved photons and converted the signal to electro/chemical info, or was it your brain that recieved the info and interpreted it into a concept? What actually caused the wave/particle collapse:the eye seeing, the brain interpreting, or was it the consciousness of the individual who is aware of what he/she is seeing/interpreting that causes the collapse.

Do we not need to define 'observer' or what function of observing constitutes an observer, in order to determine if physicality is necessary?

Qmistic

[alfredblase]

No, we all know what physical means, and we all know what an observer is. Since I am the only observer in the universe... oh.. that's it! since I am the only observer in the universe and I am composed of matter, then it is undeniable that all observers are composed of matter and therefore all observers are physical.

[QMistic]

Ok, Alfred.

But may I ask how you define physical? Are all sub-atomic particals physical. How about the photon which has not mass? Is is physical? Yet it, without mass, acted in a physical world of particles with mass as a messenger of what is 'out there'.

Every particle with mass exists most of the time as a wave. Like a wave in the sea, the wave is only energy but it is the water that has mass. Is the wave 'physical' or is it just the water that is physical?

Surely you see the problem with defining what is physical and limiting interaction with with other particles to that definition. If a mass-less non physical photon can interact with particles we think of as physical, why would the observation of the universe be limited to physical observers or the physical nature of the observer?

Steve

[alfredblase]

Because I'm the ONLY observer in the universe... (I made you all up, I made up this computer screen, I invented the universe and then convinced myself you all are actually out there somewhere, I am god), and I define the word physical. And I define myself to be physical.

I guess my whole point is that you can't prove me wrong, ever, as this question is purely philosophical, and so I am right in saying that all observers are physical, having a pefectly logical line of argument. I never said you were wrong...

[QMistic]

Well then Alfred,

While this is the philosophy section of the forum, you seem to be dismissing my argumentation because it is "purely philosophical".

In YOUR universe, are any of my arguments about mass-less entities interacting with particles of mass different then the rest of us? In your universe, do you consider mass-less entities such as energy waves, magnetic fields or the strong force to be physical objects?

Steve

[alfredblase]

I am not dismissing your argument at all. I am dismissing the question posed by this thread xD Have you really found a weakness in my argument? If so please come out with it :P Although I won't deny this thread is stimulating, interesting and amusing all at the same time.

As to your questions about what is physical... if you are a physicist, (I seem to have forgotten how I defined you when I invented you :P) if you were physicist then you wouldn't be asking me that question. At the risk of triggering a torrent of posts I will answer your question. Something made of matter is physical, (you never denied that). A photon interacts with physical objects, and therefore interacts physically, therefore it has physical properties. Indeed it is a physical object...

Ok you seem to want to stick to the framework of physcis in this discussion, well earlier on this thread, the question was resolved satisfactorily in my opinion in that sense.

In conclusion, it nearly always pays to repeat oneself, I'm the ONLY observer in the universe, and I define the word physical. And I define myself to be physical.

[sameandnot]

Forgive what may seem like sophism.
If an observer exists it exists in the universe. The universe is physical.
It is the definition of physicality. Therfore an observer is physical.

As Wittgenstein discusses, only the physical can be discussed. The meta-physical cannot. Therefore a discussion of existence outside the logical space of existence is not something that can be defined in order to be considered.

If an obsserver were not physical, the observer would be irrelevent. There is no definition I know of to descibe the existence of a thing outside the system in which all existence takes place.

There is no meta-position possible to make an extra-system description of the universe, therefore it is impossible to describe this system in terms of anything else. An observer which was not physical in this system would probably be defined as physical one or more meta positions (using a meta-language) upward. So within a wider hierarchy of references our "non-physical" observer would still be physical even if we called it not physical.

Everybody loves somebody sometime.

still, the ASSUMPTION is that the universe is "physical", because it seems to be. have we considered that, in some way, no matter how far-fetched to common perception, that "physical" reality is some how dependent upon a non-"physical" "entity".

i mean... this really can't be that far-fetched, considering that "my" perception of "physical" reality depends, intrinsically, on my being aware and conscious, to begin with. otherwise, i have no conception of "physicality" at all. so, in at least one sense, "physical" reality is dependent upon some deeper Reality, known to us as "consciousness", which perceives via the sense-organs.

the sense-organs have already, by the time we perceive it at all, done immensely complex re-organization of Reality, in a way that can be comprehended by the mind.

[sameandnot]

can "awareness" be considered physical? or must awareness be "behind" physicality, in order for "physicality" to be "perceived" at all? is the "observer" the eyeball, or body? or does the observer have eyeballs and a body at its disposal? can a physical "object" be said to have any other physical "object" "at it's disposal", unless there is an awareness and consciousness that is able to use the "disposed" object?

[sameandnot]

isn't physicality "conscious" or at the very least, "aware" that an observer is present? otherwise, how would there be any affectation? we can say that Earth is "aware" of the Sun, as it is incessantly drawn to it. gravity can be understood as an interaction based on awareness, even though the subsequent action is "only" (which is itself an assumption, when considered philosophically) of one kind.

[Loren Booda]

El Hombre Invisible,

"Upon measuring directly a displacement of Planck length L*, the measurer would receive a momentum reaction equal to h/L*, or 4,000,000 gm-cm/sec, beyond the kick of a mule" (from my website). Any QM action, by and upon the observer but greater than h, seems disallowed under quantum gravity, while classical actions may exceed (and in fact may also be defined by a lower bound of) Planck's constant.

[QMistic]

Sameandnot,

:approve: thereYaGo

Steve

[El Hombre Invisible]

El Hombre Invisible,

"Upon measuring directly a displacement of Planck length L*, the measurer would receive a momentum reaction equal to h/L*, or 4,000,000 gm-cm/sec, beyond the kick of a mule" (from my website). Any QM action, by and upon the observer but greater than h, seems disallowed under quantum gravity, while classical actions may exceed (and in fact may also be defined by a lower bound of) Planck's constant.
Loren.

Apologies for not reading this sooner. I misunderstood your point about action (which I intepretted generally).

The point I was trying to make was that to make a measurement you need some kind of measuring device that transmits information from the object to the observer, otherwise you haven't made a measurement.

In most cases of simple direct measurement, this measuring device is the optical and nervous systems of the human observer. The measurement itself isn't one event, but a series of them: several absorptions and re-emissions of photons, currents along nerves, and ultimately a rearrangement of neurons by changing axon connections. At any of these stages, technical feasibility aside, a change of state could be measured and, as such, I would consider them a series of discrete unconciousness 'observations'.

While it is easy to say: "X is measured", we cannot glean any usefulness about such statements in questions such as "Is the observer physical?" unless we say how X is measured. We need to know what is actually being measured and how. In the case of something being displaced by a Planck's length... how would we measure this?

[Loren Booda]

El Hombre Invisible,

By the the purported reaction of Planck momentum on the observer from measuring the Planck length object complement. This reaction to the observer is usually unnoticable. For a gamma ray of highest frequency (1030 s-1), one might have a reaction of 10-8 g-cm/s, still relatively small.

[Rade]

I posted this elsewhere with little response, but it also seems to fit here. My question is, suppose it were possible to invent a quantum machine and that this machine was able to conduct "internal" observation. Would such a machine be physical and would such a machine be able to violate the HUP, that is, observe two events with 0.0 % error at the same time ? All talk about the HUP assumes an external observer--but what of the internal observer, observing itself ? I have no answers, just questions.

[El Hombre Invisible]

El Hombre Invisible,

By the the purported reaction of Planck momentum on the observer from measuring the Planck length object complement. This reaction to the observer is usually unnoticable. For a gamma ray of highest frequency (1030 s-1), one might have a reaction of 10-8 g-cm/s, still relatively small.
But this is the thing: if the act of measuring has no impact on the observer, the observer wouldn't have actually measured anything. Assuming the observer measures the object by sight, and since we're measuring something on the Planck scale, this must be with the use of some device, what we are really observing is photons from this device with our own natural optical and nervous systems. This does have a measurable effect on the observer.

It is technologically unfeasible to measure the state of an atom in the lens of a human observer's eye (and would probably stop the measurement from being a measurement), or the increased current in an optic nerve, or the change in arrangement of neurons in the brain, but the observer him/herself is equipped with all the measuring aparatus they need to measure the effect on her/himself. The act of simply being conscious of the measurement is a measurement of the effect on the observer. In fact, that is exactly what a conscious measurement is - we observe nothing first-hand, not even light.

[El Hombre Invisible]

I posted this elsewhere with little response, but it also seems to fit here. My question is, suppose it were possible to invent a quantum machine and that this machine was able to conduct "internal" observation. Would such a machine be physical and would such a machine be able to violate the HUP, that is, observe two events with 0.0 % error at the same time ? All talk about the HUP assumes an external observer--but what of the internal observer, observing itself ? I have no answers, just questions.
I disagree this fits here. I suggest you start your own thread?

[debeng]

if you are a physiscist, every god damn thing is physical.

[Castlegate]

I say no, but I don't think anything in this universe is physical.

[quantumcarl]

If so, what physical parameters define them?

The physical parameter that defines an observer as being physical is that they experience anything whatsoever. When they experience enough curiousity to question whether they're physical or not there is a high probablity they are. If they weren't physical there'd be no question about it.
Its like asking if the light on the train tracks is a train coming or if its some joker with a flashlight. Either way, its a light, and those are train tracks.

The main reason I voted yes is because, as a reference, I consider my position on the spectrum of scale to be physical. By saying reference I also refer to the fact that, in decided terms I am defined as physical by the physical sciences and I accept that definition as much as I accept other basic concepts like "sunrise" "heartbeat" "water" "breathing" and "life".

These concepts and terminologies and the concept that the observer is physical are tools we use to study and describe our universe and therefore they are the terms that indicate my relation to other densities in my proximity.

The idea that the observer is physical is a simple form of categorization. Categorization is useful in helping to distiguish observed categories and the differences between categories. These "pidgeonholes" tend to form a common or standard knowledge that is easier to be gathered and shared amongst a community of scientists and others. This builds a community awareness and an ability to progress for the people of that community.

Anyone who really believes they're not physical wouldn't eat and would definitely try to walk through speeding trains and across the atlantic. Any no voters doin' much of that these days?

I'd say the observer is pretty close to "not physical" when he/she's observing some Galactic Warrior slash his character to bits on an LCD screen that's in front of his couch for 9 hours.

[Castlegate]

Anyone who really believes they're not physical wouldn't eat and would definitely try to walk through speeding trains and across the atlantic. Any no voters doin' much of that these days?Well .....Being that I am on the other side of the coin. I.E. the other alternative (conceptual reality rather than physical). Why is it that Physical reality must follow certain rules, while conceptual reality does not? Why is it that the concept me somehow has the ability to walk through a concept wall, while the physical me can't walk through a physical wall? Why can't Conceptual reality have the same rules as your choice (physical realty)?

[quantumcarl]

Why is it that Physical reality must follow certain rules, while conceptual reality does not? Why is it that the concept me somehow has the ability to walk through a concept wall, while the physical me can't walk through a physical wall? Why can't Conceptual reality have the same rules as your choice (physical realty)?

Conceptual reality is governed by a rule that is deeply rooted in physical reality. In order to conceptualize any reality whatsoever you apparently need a physical brain. Try having your brain removed and get back to us on whether or not you are still experiencing a concept of reality/no reality etc... (conceptually speaking)

[Castlegate]

Conceptual reality is governed by a rule that is deeply rooted in physical reality. In order to conceptualize any reality whatsoever you apparently need a physical brain. Try having your brain removed and get back to us on whether or not you are still experiencing a concept of reality/no reality etc... (conceptually speaking)

What I was getting at is that the universe as a whole is not a physical entity. That would include someones brain.Thats right - your brain is a conceptual entity. Same as a rock.

[quantumcarl]

the universe as a whole is not a physical entity.

Is this something one discovers after a brainectomy!?

Is this a concept cooked up by the (very physical) brain in your head?

What brain has actually experienced the "whole universe" in order to be able to support your statement?

[Castlegate]

Is this something one discovers after a brainectomy!?
Is this a concept cooked up by the (very physical) brain in your head?
What brain has actually experienced the "whole universe" in order to be able to support your statement?
I love a skeptic.
Think that your brain is not made up of bits of matter seperated by nothing at all, but rather forms of nothing at all that act in accordance with conceptual laws. Your overall experience is the same, but your approach to it is completely different.

[quantumcarl]

I love a skeptic.
Think that your brain is not made up of bits of matter seperated by nothing at all, but rather forms of nothing at all that act in accordance with conceptual laws. Your overall experience is the same, but your approach to it is completely different.


I disagree.

Concepts are what our brain uses to describe the sensory data it receives.

Conceptualization creates an illusion for people who can't handle the reality of the universe in its raw form... which is pure, unadulterated energy and (perhaps) the lack thereof.

[Castlegate]

I disagree.
Concepts are what our brain uses to describe the sensory data it receives.
Conceptualization creates an illusion for people who can't handle the reality of the universe in its raw form... which is pure, unadulterated energy and (perhaps) the lack thereof.
And that energy is no more than geometric entities composed of nothing at all. They move in accordance to conceptual laws. Sounds like a plan.

[quantumcarl]

geometric entities ........nothing at all. .....accordance .....conceptual laws.

These are your personal concepts. This is a result of a physical, biological brain trying to make sense of the unknown.

Sounds like a plan.

Sounds like religion.

[Rader]

If measurement involves physical interaction with the observer, as QM seems to indicate, why has the magnitude of that action upon the observer never itself been measured?

You should read this paper
Gao Shan
http://cogprints.org/2550/01/qtec.PDF

[quantumcarl]

"Are Observer's Physical?"

Observation requires a distinction between what is observed and the observer. The distinction is a separation and separation denotes a relative, physical quality (by definition... ie. "space between").

When there is observation there is separation and if there is separation between what is being observed and the observer then both are physical... by definition.

Further to that, the act of observing is a physical act. It does not take place without neurotransmitters, synapses, dendritic connections and axions, sodium/potassium pumps, osmosis and a slew of other physical functions, actions and attributes.

Once again, the question provides its own answer.:wink:

[Castlegate]

"Are Observer's Physical?"
Observation requires a distinction between what is observed and the observer. The distinction is a separation and separation denotes a relative, physical quality (by definition... ie. "space between").
When there is observation there is separation and if there is separation between what is being observed and the observer then both are physical... by definition.
Further to that, the act of observing is a physical act. It does not take place without neurotransmitters, synapses, dendritic connections and axions, sodium/potassium pumps, osmosis and a slew of other physical functions, actions and attributes.
Once again, the question provides its own answer.:wink:
Since it is obvious that you are so sure of yourself. It is beyond dificult to get you to entertain any other possibilities. In that vain my message to you is a purely physical one.:frown:
I'm curious as to what physical characteristics (thought) has.

[sameandnot]

I'm curious as to what physical characteristics (thought) has.
depends, right?
increase/decrease seratonin, alter testosterone/estrogen, altered state of physicality as well as mentality (they are not as different as one tends to think.).
thoughts i have also affect other people. which is to say that thoughts are not only characteristic of physcial conditions, and viceversa, but also that they are not private (strictly speaking). my thoughts about "you" do affect the totality of the "play of physicality", or the "dance of the physical".

is there a difference between 1-, 2-, 3-dimensional characterstics and 4-dimensional characteristics? in other words, to see something, statically, in a 3-dimenmsional state, surely offers the "observer" and particular kind of "physical" characteristics; can we measure affections in 4-dimensions and thereby denote physical charactersitics to something that was hitherto conceived as "non-physical"?

science, it seems, for the most part, has looked at the world, almost strictly, from the 3-dimensional perspective. that is, they "saw" things, (were able to account for things consisting of particular masses and volumes and what-not) and then attributed the affects of time on them.
can science be done from a perspective that is wholly integrated into the 4th dimension? and is not restricted to labeling reality on the basis of a 3-dimensional perspective?

i think that for all of my lack of clarity and precision, the idea is valuable. especially when we are trying to determine what is "physical" and what is "not physical"?

(mind fart: photons are not massive, but they are considered physical. what makes them different from a thought?)

[quantumcarl]

depends, right?
increase/decrease seratonin, alter testosterone/estrogen, altered state of physicality as well as mentality (they are not as different as one tends to think.).
thoughts i have also affect other people. which is to say that thoughts are not only characteristic of physcial conditions, and viceversa, but also that they are not private (strictly speaking). my thoughts about "you" do affect the totality of the "play of physicality", or the "dance of the physical".
is there a difference between 1-, 2-, 3-dimensional characterstics and 4-dimensional characteristics? in other words, to see something, statically, in a 3-dimenmsional state, surely offers the "observer" and particular kind of "physical" characteristics; can we measure affections in 4-dimensions and thereby denote physical charactersitics to something that was hitherto conceived as "non-physical"?
science, it seems, for the most part, has looked at the world, almost strictly, from the 3-dimensional perspective. that is, they "saw" things, (were able to account for things consisting of particular masses and volumes and what-not) and then attributed the affects of time on them.
can science be done from a perspective that is wholly integrated into the 4th dimension? and is not restricted to labeling reality on the basis of a 3-dimensional perspective?
i think that for all of my lack of clarity and precision, the idea is valuable. especially when we are trying to determine what is "physical" and what is "not physical"?
(mind fart: photons are not massive, but they are considered physical. what makes them different from a thought?)

Castlegate should get an idea of how I would answer his last question from reading sameandnot's post here.

Thoughts are a result of the synaptic firing of neurons. The neurons fire either because of interal stiimulus or because of external stimulus.

Internal stimulus can be anything from chemical processes in the stomache (hunger), to hormonal activity to the production of certain proteins by DNA strands.

External stimulus can range from EM waves created by thoughts being generated in other organisms (like humans) and the events caused by those thoughts... such as architecture, wars, music ad infinitum... as well as other natural occurances like spinning galaxies and EM frequencies of the sun (light) and other waves etc...

If there is such a state as "non-physical" it is difficult for us to see it or even to imagine it because we are physical in the sense that our observations are made from a juxtopposing position to things "non-physical" where energy (a physical attribute) is manifest as physical matter.

People try to conceive of "non-physical" but that's like a fish trying to conceive of living on land in open air in the rain. Rather difficult and, to any self respecting fish, absurd.:surprised

[nk]

Physical Observers:

Axioms:

(1) Conservation of energy is true.

(2) "Nothing Exists" is self contradictory. There is no physical or spiritual / platonic notion like "nothing exists" by virtue of the very fact that it is being cognized. Implying it's statement itself requires something to exist and hence "nothing exists" cannot be.

Our Universe exists due to a consciousness and one such entiy is sufficent and nessesary.(C)

It's proof cannot be as it is being assumed as an Axiom. This is not evasion or inability to prove, but appeals to yourselves to honestly report the following: When(if) you were sedated until your Mind no longer was "conscious" where did the consciousness "go" if it contained energy? By conservation of energy it should have remained and you shouldd have the memories of the ensuing surgical operation or whatever, but did you?. In sleep we either have dreams or we do not. In either case do we retain consciousness when it is used in the usual common sense? Al we might recall are dreams which are thoughts and since thoughts have energy their perfect / imperfect recall from memory buffers (called engrams I beleive) recalls. Thus Mind is the occasion (energy sensing neural networks) for manifesting thoughts and Consciousness is the enrgyless "soul". Finally, consciousness is normal states if the awareness of the Minds collective thoughts (electromagnetic waves of different amplitutes and frequencies interfeering). In short consciousness is aware of Mind affect.



Consciousness has an attribute of awareness and zero energy. It is an atomic axiomatic Entity. (Ec)



Energy is discrete and extant eternally. Its attribute is that of amplitude and frequency. It is called an Electromagnetic Entity (Ee)



Freewill is another energyless entity. Its attributes are zero energy AND is an Operator which can be employed by Ce, and / or by Ce AND Ee



Semantics: Ideas with attribute of zero energy AND semantics. Thus, thoughts are semantics manifested in Mind when accompanied by attribute of Ee.



There exists no Time. Pl., see ( http://www.geocities.com/iit_bpd1962/Time/Time.htm )



There exists no Space. (really require a long proof. Pl., see http://www.geocities.com/iit_bpd1962/Space/space.html
This is a verbal explanation and the Mathematical proof is too intricate and many links are required to comprehend it's sanity many of which requre redefinition of existing concepts of time, energy, consciousness using Fourier series and a (new) Logic whose basis is the "new" axioms..


Proof:

Using above axioms symbology.

Kindly ignore words like Reincarnation as it belittles the proof by virtue of existing unproven Beliefs. If it helps, I might add that I am an "Aetheist of sorts" and Yet have proven the existence of a sentient being, which is popularly called god / God/ Whatever. I am unware as to which category I belong and honestly I do not wish to be "categorised" in to any "---ist" or "--ism" as is implicated when capatilism and communism and Aetheist, and Agnotic et.

Content: http://www.geocities.com/iit_bpd1962/Reincarnate/reincarnate.html

Q.E.D

Case B: If Consciousness is energyless then it exists even in the lack of enrgy presence. Thisw has to be otherwise Universe could not have been extant when no observers existed, which means energy itself is created upon the realization of consciousness. Only a "god" can do this !
Thanks.
nk

[quantumcarl]

I think the act of observation may actually be considered non-physical where the observer is required to be physical to perform that act.

Conversely, however, during the act of observation, what is being observed must exhibit all the traits of being physical (to match the observer's conditional, physical bias)... However, when the object is not being observed, there's no way to verify if it is physical or not.

There remains only the assumption, based on experience, that the object of the observations remains in the state in which it was observed. And it has been demonstrated over and over that making assumptions is usually a mistake.

[Rade]

...However, when the object is not being observed, there's no way to verify if it is physical or not. There remains only the assumption, based on experience, that the object of the observations remains in the state in which it was observed. And it has been demonstrated over and over that making assumptions is usually a mistake.Neither the "object" nor that which "observes" the object remain in the same state over time, change is the only constant. My question is whether or not the "object" can observe itself ?

[quantumcarl]

Neither the "object" nor that which "observes" the object remain in the same state over time, change is the only constant. My question is whether or not the "object" can observe itself ?

Observation takes place only by the use of the mechanisms and functioning stuctures of a neural network. Observation includes the utilization of the peripheral organs of that neural network, as far as is known. Nothing that takes place outside of a neural network can be termed as "observation". For instance, a video camera does not "observe"... it "records". Then the observer interviens and makes observations of what has been recorded.

In a complex neural network such as exists in the whale, humans and other animals it has been noted that some of these species are able to maintain a state of self-contemplation... or, as you put it, "observing itself".

[Rader]

Observation takes place only by the use of the mechanisms and functioning stuctures of a neural network. Observation includes the utilization of the peripheral organs of that neural network, as far as is known. Nothing that takes place outside of a neural network can be termed as "observation". For instance, a video camera does not "observe"... it "records". Then the observer interviens and makes observations of what has been recorded.

In a complex neural network such as exists in the whale, humans and other animals it has been noted that some of these species are able to maintain a state of self-contemplation... or, as you put it, "observing itself".

So then was the HUP a valid principle say 10BY<BC? Where was the neural network? I do not think it is too difficult to see that something is drastically wrong with our concepts. Either the HUP is incorrect and there is no evidence of it or we have to redefine what the observer is.

I think the act of observation may actually be considered non-physical where the observer is required to be physical to perform that act.

Conversely, however, during the act of observation, what is being observed must exhibit all the traits of being physical (to match the observer's conditional, physical bias)... However, when the object is not being observed, there's no way to verify if it is physical or not.

Not sure exactly what you mean? Is what you mean that, the observer is not physical but invents the physical world they way it assumes it exists?
Pardon me but some of these statements can have a whole bunch of different meanings. From your post it seems that you assume that only brains and observers have neural networks, so could you answer my first question.

[quantumcarl]

So then was the HUP a valid principle say 10BY<BC? Where was the neural network? I do not think it is too difficult to see that something is drastically wrong with our concepts. Either the HUP is incorrect and there is no evidence of it or we have to redefine what the observer is.

"The uncertainty principle governs the observable nature of atoms and subatomic particles while its effect on measurements in the macroscopic world is negligible and can be usually ignored."

(wicpedia)

Don't let my name fool you into thinking I know quantum mechanics but, the above statement may help you with what you're asking about.



Not sure exactly what you mean? Is what you mean that, the observer is not physical but invents the physical world they way it assumes it exists?

Pardon me but some of these statements can have a whole bunch of different meanings. From your post it seems that you assume that only brains and observers have neural networks, so could you answer my first question.

What I tried to say is that, so far, it has been determined that there must be an emergent phenomenon such as a human in order for an act of observation to take place. I haven't seen any study that claims there are observations being made by sub-atomic sigmas, hadrons or quarks, waves or hazy-waves.

Semantically we could say that, because we are a composition of waves, then, waves can make observations. However, that would be like saying... because we are composed of 89 percent water, then water has the ability and facility to make observations.

This sorts of generalization of terms and elements is outside of science and outside of the normal use of terms and language. When the word "physical" is used it describes a dynamic synthesis of observation, quantum elements and "wave/partical duality". Observation is the result of the synergy created by the combination of emergent elements... namely, a certain level of complexity in a neural network.

So, when you challenge whether or not quantum particles or waves can observe... you challenge the nature of lanquage more than you challenge the nature of observation and physicality.

When I determine the "act" of observation as non-physical I am merely pointing to the fact that there is a "pipeline" between the observer and the object that holds no physical characteristics.

The observer is a result of physical laws the object of inquiry is a result of physical laws but the "observation" remains non-[hysical. It takes place on the backs of the object and the observer but has no spine of its own... to paraphrase.

[Rader]

"The uncertainty principle governs the observable nature of atoms and subatomic particles while its effect on measurements in the macroscopic world is negligible and can be usually ignored."

(wicpedia)

Don't let my name fool you into thinking I know quantum mechanics but, the above statement may help you with what you're asking about.

I know that we both know enough to understand what I am questioning and why we seem to have different perspectives. This statement holds veracity only because macro objects have a negligible measurement between the crests of there waves which would make them then appear as solid objects.

What I tried to say is that, so far, it has been determined that there must be an emergent phenomenon such as a human in order for an act of observation to take place. I haven't seen any study that claims there are observations being made by sub-atomic sigmas, hadrons or quarks, waves or hazy-waves.

Particle experiments show that, if there is no observation there is no particle. The mere act of observation changes reality even after the fact. In other words the particle might not be where it could have been but is only where we find it. Your explanation of human cognitive minds is only OK because that’s all we can be. Why do we have to have any study of what we already know in our heads? My question is how can we come up with a concept that correlates with what we assume exists in this world, from a time evolution of particles to cognitive minds? You can not just rub off the effects that waves have some kind of emergent property that humans have. Then you would have to explain how and where waves get this property and show why it makes us observe how we assume the world exists. If I am correct in understanding you, observation is an emergent property of waves, whereas my understanding is this can not be, that waves are the emergent property of what is observing, which is the world as we assume it exists.

Semantically we could say that, because we are a composition of waves, then, waves can make observations. However, that would be like saying... because we are composed of 89 percent water, then water has the ability and facility to make observations.

Semantically you could say that but what is physical? The physical world seems to be precisely that relationships of waves. Not quite, only if, we attach properties to waves like the ability to observe, there is an alternative and that is in our head.

This sorts of generalization of terms and elements is outside of science and outside of the normal use of terms and language. When the word "physical" is used it describes a dynamic synthesis of observation, quantum elements and "wave/particle duality". Observation is the result of the synergy created by the combination of emergent elements... namely, a certain level of complexity in a neural network.

Again that’s fine how humans observe but you seem to be missing what I really want you to answer. How did we get from particles to neural networks?

So, when you challenge whether or not quantum particles or waves can observe... you challenge the nature of lanquage more than you challenge the nature of observation and physicality.

I am not challenging that they do and most certainly think that they do not but whatever does certainly needs what they are to do it.

When I determine the "act" of observation as non-physical I am merely pointing to the fact that there is a "pipeline" between the observer and the object that holds no physical characteristics.

What does that mean, your not sure of wave-particle duality?

The observer is a result of physical laws the object of inquiry is a result of physical laws but the "observation" remains non-[hysical. It takes place on the backs of the object and the observer but has no spine of its own... to paraphrase.

Hmmmm I could take that to mean what I think but I am sure I am wrong.

[quantumcarl]

I am not challenging that they do and most certainly think that they do not but whatever does certainly needs what they are to do it.

Right. All I'm saying is that "observation" is the resulting phenomenon of a collection of particles (condensed waves, whatev), neurons are the resulting phenomenon of a collection of particles (condensed waves)... so far, the word "observe, observer and observation" is defined as such.... from: http://www.dictionary.net/observation
Observation \Ob`ser*va"tion\, n. [L. observatio: cf.F. observation.]

1. The act or the faculty of observing or taking notice; the act of seeing, or of fixing the mind upon, anything.

My observation, which very seldom lies. --Shakespeare.

2. The result of an act, or of acts, of observing; view; reflection; conclusion; judgment.

In matters of human prudence, we shall find the greatest advantage in making wise observations on our conduct. --I. Watts.

3. Hence: An expression of an opinion or judgment upon what one has observed; a remark. ``That's a foolish observation.'' --Shak.

To observations which ourselves we make We grow more partial for the observer's sake. --Pope.

4. Performance of what is prescribed; adherence in practice; observance. [Obs.]


We are to procure dispensation or leave to omit the observation of it in such circumstances. --Jer. Taylor.

5. (Science)
(a) The act of recognizing and noting some fact or occurrence in nature, as an aurora, a corona, or the structure of an animal.
(b) Specifically, the act of measuring, with suitable instruments, some magnitude, as the time of an occultation, with a clock; the right ascension of a star, with a transit instrument and clock; the sun's altitude, or the distance of the moon from a star, with a sextant; the temperature, with a thermometer, etc.
(c) The information so acquired.

Its all pretty straight forward from their point of view.

What does that mean, your not sure of wave-particle duality?

No. It means that there is a non-physical attribute to what is known as a concept. A concept is the resultant phenomenon of a collection of particles (with certain system attributes and functions) but the concept itself is somehow out of the loop of what we consider "physical".

Obserations are sometimes the motivators of concepts... they are arrived at via physical means and motivations.... but the concepts that may result from an observation remain aphysical and somewhat etherial.


Hmmmm I could take that to mean what I think but I am sure I am wrong.

Its a difficult thing to describe because it isn't physical and I consider myself to have more physical characteristics than a "pipeline" of observation that exists yet does not exist.:confused:

[quantumcarl]

For instance:

An observation often results in the formation of a concept that is completely unassociated with the nature of the original object being observed. (eg: after observing what appeared as a clear path through a door-way you are actually walking through glass.)

The observer, being totally oblivious of the fact that he/she has formed an absurd concept with regard to the object being observed can only believe the absurd concept... until they learn otherwise. Until then.. the concept they have formed only exists because of a specific set of associated, functioning neurons. It is not a reality, its not physical, it is thouroughly unverifiable beyond what is going on with the specific neurons.

What neurons do create with their physical activity (for eg. concepts) remains fleeting, etheric and aphysical as does the condition which evoked the formation of the concept .

That condition of which I speak is existence. Existence holds an aphysical quality because existence presents a support structure for both physical and aphysical phenomena... (theoretically... its hard to prove non-existence from our bias of existing). In other words existence appears to encompass both physical and aphysical conditions and so could be defined to be one or the other.

It is this quality of "dual citizenship" (ie: being physical and aphysical) held by existence that allows our concepts to contain incorrect information that has no correlation to physical reality. Yet, it is also because of the duality in existence that our concepts do become physical reality.

[Rader]

All I'm saying is that "observation" is the resulting phenomenon of a collection of particles (condensed waves, whatev), neurons are the resulting phenomenon of a collection of particles (condensed waves)...

Then any collection of particles should have this quality yet many collections do not. I am sure we could set up a particle experiment with a chimpanzee yet it would be quite difficult with a rock.

It means that there is a non-physical attribute to what is known as a concept. A concept is the resultant phenomenon of a collection of particles (with certain system attributes and functions) but the concept itself is somehow out of the loop of what we consider "physical".

I will agree with you that concepts are non-physical but there corresponding physical relationships could also be considered so. If you take away the observer there is nothing.

So you think that concepts and observers are emergent properties of collections of particles. The concept space-time existed long before Einstein or human observers ever existed. There relationships that define what space-time is might have come to be but the concept would always have to have been. That would be the equivalent of saying that something can come from nothing. My perspective would be that everything comes from one thing. In another sense concepts are eternal yet the physical is mutable and ever changing.

Obserations are sometimes the motivators of concepts... they are arrived at via physical means and motivations.... but the concepts that may result from an observation remain aphysical and somewhat etherial.

OK and sometimes there not, that is why I brought up Einstein’s concept of space-time. If history tells the truth, what could he have observed to come up with this concept? It was only after observation and experiments proved him right. By thinking the concept came to him, although thoughts are not mine in this case his, he has been accredited this feat of mind.

Its a difficult thing to describe because it isn't physical and I consider myself to have more physical characteristics than a "pipeline" of observation that exists yet does not exist.:confused:

Let’s just say that we know we are in our heads, so obviously we can observe the world the way we assume it exists.

[quantumcarl]

Here's a conundrum I found within Loren's question.

We are all observers. Observation is an innate function of our nature. We use it to survive, learn and maintain mobility etc.... Therefore, our observations, as far as we can ascertain, are used to maintain our physical state... ie: survive in what we have decided is a physical world.

To ask if the observer is physical is asking the observer to make an observation with regard to the nature of their constitution. This is like asking a person if they think they're a good person or if they are competent or if their a liar etc. etc.. The answer you get is going to be from the perspective of the person... they may have everything to lose or everything to gain depending on their answer. Their answer will, 99% of the time, up hold their beliefs... or in the least, be an expression of what they believe.

So, how are we to trust the answer? It is only an opinion. Can we build a machine that will answer the question "are we physical?"

This isn't possible because we will build into the machine our bias with regard to our beliefs. The question is so relative to the individual that it cannot be answered for all of human kind... or... all those who make observations. Thus, the question is an absurdity in the domain of questions.

[moving finger]

If so, what physical parameters define them?
We need to be clear about what is meant by "observer" here.

The term observer is often used in the context of objective scientific experiments, where a measurement is being made and the observer is loosely defined as the agent (not necessarily a conscious agent) making the measurement, whilst the observed is loosely defined as the system upon which the measurement is being made. I say "loosely" because this concept only works in the macroscopic approximation where we can assume decoherence eliminates any quantum interference effects. At the quantum level, where we need to take quantum effects into account, it is not possible to delineate "observer" and "observed", and neither is it possible to make a "measurement", in the same way that we can at the macroscopic level (in effect, observer and observed become entangled at the quantum level).

With this in mind, we have at least two possible definitions of "observer".

Observer as "macroscopic agent" : If by "observer" we mean "the agent which is making a measurement in a macroscopic experiment", then yes, this agent can be and usually is physical (but not necessarily conscious).

Observer as "conscious self" : However, if by observer we mean "the idea of self which is created as part of the phenomenon of conscious experience" then no, this agent is not physical (the self is an illusion created by the conscious mind).

Thus, I cannot rationally answer the poll unless it is first agreed what kind of "observer" we are talking about here.

Best Regards

MF

(ps - imho this thread more properly belongs in the metaphysics & epistemology section.......)

[quantumcarl]

if by observer we mean "the idea of self which is created as part of the phenomenon of conscious experience" then no, this agent is not physical (the self is an illusion created by the conscious mind).

Thus, I cannot rationally answer the poll unless it is first agreed what kind of "observer" we are talking about here.


I tend to agree with most of your comments concerning the entanglment of observer and observed.

I would question, however, whether or not "illusions" are physical or not. Illusions are a synthesis of neuronal activity that generate the concept of the illusion.

I know I've already suggested that concepts are non-physical but there is more to it than that. Concepts are a result of a synergistic harmony that occurs when a group of neurons fire in sequence or simultaneiously. Thus there is a high percentage of physicalness and/or dependency upon the physical for an illusion to take place. The concept/illusion must then be verified by the physical attributes of other neurons in order to be acknowledged. This leads me to believe that an illusion or a concept has about an 93% or higher content of physical nature to it.

[moving finger]

I would question, however, whether or not "illusions" are physical or not. Illusions are a synthesis of neuronal activity that generate the concept of the illusion.
I would define an illusion as a false belief.

What I am claiming is that the notion of "self", as an existent entity, is an illusion.

Let us take another example. In the same way that I may believe the "self" exists, I might also have the illusion that the "tooth fairy" exists.

Would you argue that it follows, from my mistaken belief that the tooth fairy exists, that the tooth fairy (even though it does not exist except in my imagination) is therefore necessarily physical?

What IS physical is the neuronal activity which "generates" those beliefs. But just because the neuronal activity is physical, it does not follow that a "belief" is also a physical object.

I know I've already suggested that concepts are non-physical but there is more to it than that. Concepts are a result of a synergistic harmony that occurs when a group of neurons fire in sequence or simultaneiously. Thus there is a high percentage of physicalness and/or dependency upon the physical for an illusion to take place. The concept/illusion must then be verified by the physical attributes of other neurons in order to be acknowledged. This leads me to believe that an illusion or a concept has about an 93% or higher content of physical nature to it.
I would be very interested to know how you arrive at the precise figure of 93%!

To me, it seems clear that there is a very distinct dividing line between physical and non-physical, and to talk of something being "93% physical" seems strange.

To take your explanation of "concepts" further, I would say that a concept is based on a (dynamic) information processing algorithm, and in that respect it is non-physical. Where the physical world comes into play is that a physical substrate is required to represent or embody that information. Think of it in terms of computer hardware (the physical substrate) and the computer program which is running on that hardware. The program is simply "information" (which may be represented or embodied in many different ways), and the hardware without the running program is just a static lump of material. Without any hardware to run on, the program is non-existent, and without the program running, the hardware is ineffectual. Put them both together and you have a working computer program. But at no time is the program "physical" or even 93% physical.

Best Regards

MF

If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple. (Stuart Burns)

[quantumcarl]

What IS physical is the neuronal activity which "generates" those beliefs. But just because the neuronal activity is physical, it does not follow that a "belief" is also a physical object.


I would be very interested to know how you arrive at the precise figure of 93%!

To me, it seems clear that there is a very distinct dividing line between physical and non-physical, and to talk of something being "93% physical" seems strange.

To take your explanation of "concepts" further, I would say that a concept is based on a (dynamic) information processing algorithm, and in that respect it is non-physical. Where the physical world comes into play is that a physical substrate is required to represent or embody that information. Think of it in terms of computer hardware (the physical substrate) and the computer program which is running on that hardware. The program is simply "information" (which may be represented or embodied in many different ways), and the hardware without the running program is just a static lump of material. Without any hardware to run on, the program is non-existent, and without the program running, the hardware is ineffectual. Put them both together and you have a working computer program. But at no time is the program "physical" or even 93% physical.

Best Regards

MF

If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple. (Stuart Burns)

The program is physical in that it is a series of laser cut grooves in plastic. The format of the information in the program depends on the CD or HD or MP3 or whathaveyou to exist. The grooves (or whatever) stimulate an EM signal much the way a neuron does. The EM signal is signatured in such a way that it is recognizable to other physical structures as a piece of information, instruction... etc.

The EM wave/signal is Physical...albeit quantumesque. The receiving-end is physical. So, please tell me, where is the non-physical portion of a concept or a program?

[moving finger]

The program is physical in that it is a series of laser cut grooves in plastic. The format of the information in the program depends on the CD or HD or MP3 or whathaveyou to exist.
With respect, this is an example of "confusing the map with the territory".

The "laser grooves in plastic" is not the program. It is a representation of (some of) the information pertaining to the program. In the same way, a map is not the same as the territory, it is a representation of (some of the information pertaining to) the territory.

So, please tell me, where is the non-physical portion of a concept or a program?
Let me answer your question with an example, and a question for you :

I can imagine that the tooth fairy exists, when in fact the tooth fairy does not exist. All I am doing when imagining the existence of the tooth fairy is cross-relating multitudes of concepts (correlating otherwise abstract information) within my mind. This is simply information. Nowhere in my mind is there anything which could be identified (objectively) as a physical tooth fairy.

Are you perhaps suggesting that this concept (this figment of my imagination) "the tooth fairy" is somehow physically real?

Best Regards

MF

Humans put constraints on what they can achieve more often by their limited imaginations than by any limitations in the laws of physics (Alex Christie)

[quantumcarl]

Are you perhaps suggesting that this concept (this figment of my imagination) "the tooth fairy" is somehow physically real?

Best Regards



No.

I am suggesting that a "figment of your imagination" is 100% physical (contrary to what I wrote earlier). The reasoning for this answer is because, according to physics, neurophysics and biophysics the "figment" of an imagination is a physical, electro magnetic response to a configuration of other physical attributes such as neuronal chemistry and the structuring of a neuron.

We interpret the the patterns and frequencies of these EM responses and assign their appropriateness to other neurons and subsequently, other EM responses. This chain of responses forms the "figment", concept and/or thought that is sometimes experienced in humans.

This alone suggests that the observer and the observer's thoughts are all purely physical. But, there is alway the question of where EM radiation comes from and what is the root cause of energy.

To answer my question to you:
no one would be able to locate the non-physical attributes of a concept or a 'figment' because all non-physical features are "off the map" as you say, of the physical universe.

[moving finger]

We interpret the the patterns and frequencies of these EM responses and assign their appropriateness to other neurons and subsequently, other EM responses. This chain of responses forms the "figment", concept and/or thought that is sometimes experienced in humans.
The only things that have any physical reality in my brain are the various chemicals, free radicals, ions and electrons which make up the various hardware configurations of my neurophysiology. There is nothing there which can be physically identified as the “tooth fairy”, which is the concept that I imagine (for the sake of this discussion) really exists. The concept “tooth fairy” is simply a subjective correlation between different levels of information represented by those neurophysiological pathways. I agree the concept would not exist if the pathways did not exist (just as the program running on a computer would not exist if the computer hardware did not exist), but that does not make either the concept or the computer program a “physical entity”. Information per se is not physical. The concept I have in my mind of a tooth fairy, and the program running on my computer, are both dynamic patterns of non-physical information, which simply rely upon diverse physical substrates for their enactment. (Once again, do not confuse a running dynamic computer program, patterns of information, with the physical but static encoding of some of that program information on a CD or hard drive).

This alone suggests that the observer and the observer's thoughts are all purely physical.
Think of a computer simulation such as “SIM City”. Are you suggesting that the virtual cities and buildings which are “constructed” in Sim City have some kind of physical embodiment? Turn off the computer monitor, but leave the program still running. The program is still “creating” the virtual buildings and roads etc in dynamic memory, but all it is really doing is just processing information. There is nothing physical that we could point to and say “look, there is that virtual hospital, there is that virtual police station” – these entities do not physically exist, they are simply virtual constructs made from the interpretations that we place on dynamically changing patterns of information.

Best Regards

MF

[quantumcarl]

What you call your neuroelectromagnetic activity is up to you... you can call it the "tooth fairy" and you can call it the "Old Man and the Sea". What you call your neuronal impulses is up to you and the people who agree with you.

The fact remains, however, that the "thought" you call the "tooth fairy" actually is 100% physical, according to my calculations:wink: .

Judging from how the effects of a thought can grow exponentially in energy and in size I wouldn't be too surprised if the Tooth Fairy did physically exist by now. In fact, the whole Tooth Fairy "idea" possesses adults and causes them to expend energy in an inefficent manner in many of the cultures in the Northern Hemisphere. So, effectively, the Tooth Fairy physically exists in the actions and role modeling of parents of the Northern Hemisphere

[eggman]

Possibility 1

I does not seem that Awareness is a physical thing...

So i vote 'no'....the observer is not a physical entity...

It may be like a property of consciousness...i'm not sure.

Since awareness cannot be the object of itself we really have no way to know for sure (?)

[eggman]

Possibility 2

...maybe an apparition of the physical division of 'thought ' or what appears to be 'thinking'

In other words the universe is a ghost or phantasm..

Particles divide...energy is released...this energy illuminates the residue

of the original particles and we 'see' a world or image via the nervous system.

Life is but a Dream ?

?????

[moving finger]

Life is but a Dream ?

A dream requires a dreamer...... but this is the homunculus or cartesian theatre illusion :smile:

Best Regards

MF

[selfAdjoint]

A dream requires a dreamer...... but this is the homunculus or cartesian theatre illusion

Does it really? Since we can do without the homonculus in physical theories, why couldn't solipsism do without it? The universe as a congeries of fictions "appearing" virtually!

[moving finger]

Does it really? Since we can do without the homonculus in physical theories, why couldn't solipsism do without it? The universe as a congeries of fictions "appearing" virtually!
I take your point.

What I should have said is :

Perhaps life is but a dream. But do not make the mistake of thinking that there is a "physical dreamer" who is having that dream, because that way lies the cartesian theatre illusion of consciousness

Best Regards

MF

[paw_tracker]

If you consider Feynman's "handshake" interpretation of the copenhagen's, the observer must be physical in order for the electron or any quantum particle to be disrupted or influences from any distance. See Feynmans quantum mechanics interpretation of the particle duality.

[selfAdjoint]

See Feynmans quantum mechanics interpretation of the particle duality

Where can I see it?

[Ernies]

As Wittgenstein discusses, only the physical can be discussed. The meta-physical cannot. Therefore a discussion of existence outside the logical space of existence is not something that can be defined in order to be considered.

What on earth does the first sentence mean? Simply that this is Wittgenstein's definition of discussion? Is mmarko agreeing with that?
If so how can one discuss mathematics, music and so on? I can easily find a definition of Zemelo's theorem, but find it impossible to do the equivalent with, say, Chopin's Prelude No. 17. I can discuss both, but neither are to my mind physical.

Wittgenstein may or may not have been a genius, but he never got over his theory of maths being ignored at a conference in 1930 by preference for Godel. This gave him a fanatical bias against unending processes, and ultimately restricted him to discussing the physical. The kindest opinion I have heard of his maths theory is 'naive'

Ernies