The essential participator in quantum mechanics and cosmology

[Loren Booda]

Newton was separate from his clockwork universe; in the last century we have realized that we experimenters really subjectify the outcome of our experiment by attempting to exclude ourselves from it. Both quantum mechanics and cosmology involve an observer who participates by disturbing an measurement or acts as a part to a whole.

I offer that all observations involve a participator - oneself - who is an inescapable intermediary to all physics. The key is to find the correspondence between the objective subjectivity of our microverse and macroverse. How you compare the role of the measurer between these diverse regions determines the basis for a wholly unified theory.

 

[Royce]

Loren, you surprise me a bit with this one. I had thought that you leaned more toward the empirical practical side. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you and attribute it to the Universal Consciousness, possibly a better term would be Cosmic Consciousness where everything is part of the consciousness and therefore aware and conscious of everything else in the universe. I know it sounds a bit mystical but how else do we explain the weirdness of QM and cosmos.

 

[Loren Booda]

Royce,

Good to know the cosmos is alive and well in "Atlant," GA. Yea, I can be very speculative; my website http://www.quantumdream.net is "proof" of that.

Your inspiration gave me an idea:

(The set of) observers themselves are (is) the unification (intersection) of quantum and cosmos!

 

[Royce]

Sounds good to me. This could lead us anywhere and is definitely worth thinking about.
Where and how can we tie in relativity and gravity? I'll check out your sight. Thanks

 

[Royce]

Wow. I went to your home page. I see that you already have all the above covered. As I am no mathematician this will take a while.

 

[Loren Booda]

Within a community of observers, may any two agree on a given measurement underlain by systems of physics which respect more the particular loci of the community than inert matter? It's as if all of our communications with PF have been intermediated by a Turing Machine - but here reproducible lab measurements are reinterpreted by a Turing Machine physical analog - so for both I am (we are?) none the wiser as a result of this interface.

I propose that my phenomenological worldview remains, at least seems, the same due to that underlying mechanism which respects individuals and evolves perceived science toward their overall objectivity. Physics is then an interaction between observers; if not, what reputable mechanics has not been witnessed - in experiment, in theory, in calculation - held together by the dynamics of the measurer? We are vessels complete of myriad worlds!