John M wrote:
> Peter,
> would you consider to identify the 'observer'?
> (Maybe not as an O -moment...)

No, I wouldn't care to. There are theories that talk
about observations, measurement and so on
(that's epistemology), but there aren't any that
tell you what an observer *is* ontologically.
(The "observer" of relativity could perfectly
well be automated video-cameras for instance).

Which is as it should be. If conscious observers had a special
role in physics,. that would scupper the observation from other
sciences that consciousness is a biological phenomenon,
which has not exsited for most of the universes history.

The no-metaphysical-role for observers rule is one that
maintains the consilience of science.

> Many think of The Observer AS "me" or "fellow humans"
> while there may be a broader view, like e.g. "anything
> catching info" which comes closer to (my) 'conscious'
> definition.
> The observer seems so fundamental in the views of this
> list (and in wider circles of contemporaryh thinking)
> that a more general identification may be in order.

No, no,nooooooo!!!

It is far too general already.

The list needs to be a lot more particualr about the
difference between ontology and epistemology, between
"to be" and "to know". Then they would not slide
from "X cannot be known without an observer" to "X cannot exist without
an observer".

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to