Can You Resolve Something for Me?

[loseyourname]

We seem to be at an impasse in this thread because no one there has any knowledge of what is being discussed. Would someone here kindly help us out and explain whether or not consciousness is relevant to questions of observation? I'm trying to keep people from drawing any metaphysical conclusions, but wild hearts are difficult to tame.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'd rather not get drawn in, but I'll share with you.

No, consciousness is not required for observation. Observation really just means some form of interaction.

I realize I'm not clarifying the problem, all I'm doing is weighing in with a "vote".

 

[Louis Cypher]

Indeed this forums quite self delusional a case in point, these people ar symantically going round in circles I'm being ironic and look at the replies, funny as u like, I think I might get banned if I don't stop so I'll shut up and avoid this issue like a barge pole

http://physicsastronomy.com/index.php?f=0

I suggest u go here there are some well educated people here, just have to sort the wheat from the chaff, bloody slow getting replies though so don't take it personally as I did I thought they were being ignorant

 

[Louis Cypher]

We seem to be at an impasse in this thread because no one there has any knowledge of what is being discussed. Would someone here kindly help us out and explain whether or not consciousness is relevant to questions of observation? I'm trying to keep people from drawing any metaphysical conclusions, but wild hearts are difficult to tame.

yes it is key to understanding anything we look for a wave we see a wave we look for a particle we see a particle we look for both we see both light a case in point what are we rreally seeing?

Can you see the point:-)

lol

 

[Wave's_Hand_Particle]

We seem to be at an impasse in this thread because no one there has any knowledge of what is being discussed. Would someone here kindly help us out and explain whether or not consciousness is relevant to questions of observation? I'm trying to keep people from drawing any metaphysical conclusions, but wild hearts are difficult to tame.

Are we asking if Consciousness is an effect of Events, or events are the result of Consciousness?

I believe past events are unobservable because of 'the path-integral of memory', and cannot be reproduced by a conscious observation.

Unconsciousness can invoke more information needed to explain an event, thus unconscious 'visions' or rememberance, can produce weird and dreamlike experience.

Observers are Conscious, 'blind' observers are just as Conscious, they can feel reality and can be Relative to events that surround them, so Observation has many levels of Consciousness. Observation has seeing and perceptional qualities that add to the individuals ability to comprehend events.

 

[caribou]

Old interpretations used to be in the style of guy-in-lab-measures-this-or-that, and some people got a bit mystical and decided some problems could be solved if we made the consciousness of observers a feature in some way.

The modern work on decoherence and decoherent histories remove observers as this idea makes no sense when applied to something like cosmology. It also solves the problems that conciousness was introduced to "solve".

Particle interactions leading to entanglement are the "observers". In a famous example, even in deep space, two superposition states of a tiny grain of dust get "observed" by interactions with vast numbers of photons left over from the Big Bang and the superposition state of the dust grain is destroyed in a billionth of a second.

The constant interactions remove much of the quantum effects and the particles are the "observers" now.