The Limitations of Observation: A Scientific Perspective

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sigma Greyhamn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basis
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the philosophical implications of observation within the context of chaos and order in the Multiverse. It delves into the nature of reality, the role of the Observer, and the interplay between chaos and order, touching on concepts of sentience, meaning, and the subjective experience of existence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Philosophical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that observation is a fundamental act that brings order to chaos, suggesting that without an Observer, the Multiverse lacks meaning.
  • Others argue that chaos is the natural state of the Multiverse, and that order emerges over time through the act of observation.
  • A viewpoint is presented that the Observer is independent of reality and plays a crucial role in defining existence through observation.
  • Some contributions suggest that the concept of Qualia is central to understanding perception and meaning, positing that Qualia are the fundamental units of meaning that the Observer manipulates.
  • There is a discussion on the dualistic nature of the act of observation, which involves both thought and emotion, and how this interplay is essential for creating order.
  • Participants reflect on the idea that mastering perspectives is necessary for integrating concepts and achieving a deeper understanding of reality.
  • Some participants express concerns about the dangers of serving chaos, suggesting that it leads to mental instability and a loss of self.
  • There is a notion that the Observer's journey involves a constant struggle to learn and understand the nature of the Multiverse, with ignorance being equated to chaos.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of observation, the relationship between chaos and order, and the implications of these concepts for understanding reality.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about the nature of reality, the role of the Observer, and the definitions of chaos and order, which may not be universally accepted or clearly defined among participants.

  • #31
Greetings Sigma Greyhamn !
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
As I understand it, the scientific method has
four steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon
or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain
the phenomena.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the
existence of other phenomena, or to predict
quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the
predictions by several independent experimenters
and properly performed experiments.

Is this correct? Does this definition meet with
everyone in the discussions approval?
Yes, I agree.
I included points 1 and 2, but forgot about
points 3 and 4 (I was kin'na tired and all so
I didn't fully think it through - excuses,
excuses... ).

Anyway, what now ?
I personally see no assumptions present.

Live long and prosper.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Well...

I agree that 1 and 2 don't have implicit assumptions (beyond the defintions, which are obvious and not something I'm willing to debate, though some wankers would)

I'll need agreement on the whole description to proceed however.
 
  • #33
Again, I see no problem with that scientific
method part. :wink:
 
  • #34
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

That's a negative I'm afraid.
You're assuming that there are things
independent from human senses. :wink: Not to mention
the fact that when you speak of a particular
tool you're making a great deal more assumptions.


Of course I understand that human can mess with observations, and scientists do this all the time (actually mostly their students who perform actual measurements - they can screw everything which possibly can be screwed ).

What I am trying to say is that the less subjective are measurements (the less human senses are involved), the better. That is why we have scientists (not just each and any passerby) to take measurements - people who study how to measure, estimate errors, and who practice long and build more and more accurate devices to take less and less subjective measurements.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Greetings !
Originally posted by Alexander
Of course I understand that human can mess with
observations, and scientists do this all the time
(actually mostly their students who perform actual
measurements - they can screw everything which
possibly can be screwed ).
That is not what I meant and I believe you
knew that...:wink:

You're assuming that obsevation is necessarily
a true indication of reality. You are making
assumptions instead of practicing pure science
and that's your mistake. Further more you're
making further absolute assumptions about the
measuring devices specificly. There isn't even
a clear definition of "real" existence or "unreal"
existence, it's just a semantic perspective.

Live long and prosper.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
783
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
92
Views
14K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
8K