danny mayes wrote:


Fair enough. But if we accept those parameters does it make any sense to even talk about "reality."? Maybe in a philosophical sense, but certainly not in a scientific sense as by (your) definition objective reality, the only reality you say, is forever separated from what it is possible for us to experience, or to know. Therefore, in contemplating objective reality, we might as well be contemplating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

In a way you are certainly right, but in another way I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about objective reality either. For instance, under the theory of relativity different observers can observe the same events happening in alternative sequences, and happening at different times. Yet neither observer is wrong. So, for example in that event you can not speak of an objective sequence of events or time.

But there's still an objective answer to all frame-independent physical questions like what two clocks will read at the moment they meet at a single point in space. The fact that the sequence of distant events (ie events with a spacelike separation) has no frame-independent answer is not fundamentally any more problematic than the fact that in Newtonian physics there is no frame-independent answer to the question of which of two objects has a greater speed, or the fact that there is no answer to the question "which of two objects has a greater x-coordinate" that does not depend on where you put the origin and axes of your spatial coordinate system (after all, questions about sequences are really just questions about which of two events has the greater t-coordinate). All of these are just issues of having multiple equally good coordinate systems to describe the same objective spacetime.

And of course we are all aware of the role the observer plays in the development of quantum events.

Depends on your interpretation though. Most interpretations of QM give an objective picture of the universe that includes the observer--that goes for Bohmian mechanics ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ ), the transactional interpretation ( http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html ), and the many-worlds interpretation ( http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm ).

Jesse


Reply via email to