- #1
Loren Booda
- 3,125
- 4
If so, what physical parameters define them?
I think that the observer this information concept but not physical.Loren Booda said:If so, what physical parameters define them?
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).sameandnot said: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?
Loren Booda said: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?
alfredblase said: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.
mmarko said: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.
Loren.Loren Booda said: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.
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.Loren Booda said: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.
I disagree this fits here. I suggest you start your own thread?Rade said: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.
Loren Booda said:If so, what physical parameters define them?
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)?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?
Castlegate said: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 said: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)