Dan wrote:
>People have tried, fairly early on actually, to come up with a
>macroscopic
>realism/microscopic non-realism. They have tended to fall apart
>answering
>the question: at what size to things cease to be real. Are molecules
>real?
>Are things we need a microscope to see real?
OK. Are you REALLY trying to argue that an "observer" is neccesary for
the universe to exist? Can you please define what it means to
"observe" a QM interaction.
Dan, I have a table in front of me, on that table is a computer, some
pens, and a couple of books. Do those exist? Yes, they do exist. If
you try to argue that things don't really exist, then why are you
bothering to talk with anyone? Wouldn't the logical consequence of
such solipsism be to just sit in the corner and drool on oneself? If
the world doesn't really exist then humans don't exist...so why are you
pretending to talk to us?
However, I happen to know that you are not a solipsist. So, could you
explain, in clear simple language, the difference between your
philosophy and solipsism?
Oh, and while you're at it, explain what you think an "observer" must
be. Does an observer have to be a human being? Or could it be a
machine? What is it about an observation that collapses a wave-front?
Is there any agreed upon definition of what an observer is?
=====
Darryl
Think Galactically -- Act Terrestrially
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
