newrd
- 11
- 1
If reality requires an observer, and life on Earth is only 3.8 billion years old- yet the universe is 13.8 billion years old, who was the observer for the first 10 billion years?
The discussion centers on the philosophical implications of observation in quantum mechanics and cosmology, specifically questioning the necessity of an observer in the context of the universe's age. Participants clarify that reality does not require a human observer, and the statement regarding particles lacking definite properties until measured pertains specifically to quantum mechanics. The conversation highlights the distinction between popular science interpretations and peer-reviewed scientific literature, emphasizing the importance of credible sources in scientific discussions.
PREREQUISITESStudents of physics, philosophers of science, and anyone interested in the foundational questions of reality and observation in quantum mechanics and cosmology.
newrd said:So when we say
Ahh ok, I got the quote from a Stephen Hawking book, I thought it may just be the generally agreed upon stance?Vanadium 50 said:In the words of Tonto, "What you mean we?" I have never said such a thing, because it's not correct. A human observer is not required.
Ohh yeah- and I never said human ;)Vanadium 50 said:In the words of Tonto, "What you mean we?" I have never said such a thing, because it's not correct. A human observer is not required.
newrd said:when we say "A particle has neither a definite position nor a definite velocity unless and until those quantities are measured by an observer"
newrd said:I got the quote from a Stephen Hawking book