oh-oh, I didn't change the title the first time, sorry all. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Darryl Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >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. I am arguing that those phenomenon do not exist apart from human observations. >you try to argue that things don't really exist, then why are you >bothering to talk with anyone? No, I am not arguing that. I am arguing that tables, books and pens are not things-in-themselves. They do not exist apart from 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? > Solipsism states that there is nothing real besides me. My philosophical position accepts that there are a plethora of things-in-themselves out there, including other people. What I am arguing is that tables, chairs, books, human bodies are not things in themselves. The best metaphor I can give is images on a GUI. The world we live in is akin to images on a screen. I certainly believe that those images relate to reality, but I don't know how my screen distorts things, and I don't know in just what ways is it limited. >From this argument, we start to see the limits of our GUI with QM. It becomes impossible to describe the images on our GUI in terms of those images being things-in-themselves. But, if we accept it as a GUI, and the images being partly a product of our computer and sensor system and partly a product of the actual things that are being detected, then things make more sense. >Oh, and while you're at it, explain what you think an "observer" must >be. Does an observer have to be a human being? >From a philosophical position alone, I'd say yes. Another type of intelligence could have a significantly different GUI than we do. >Or could it be a machine? What is it about an observation that >collapses a wave-front? That is still under investigation. There's some work in quantum decoherence that is attempting to obtain a quantum mechanical theory of quantum mechanical mechanisms. Technically, it involves off diagonal elements going to zero. (I may or may not have time to write a long explanation of this later, or another physicist on the list can explain this..maybe please?) > Is there any agreed upon definition of what an observer is? I don't think so. Dan'm Traeki Ring of Crystallized Knowledge. Known for calculating, but not known for shutting up
