Hi,
Looks like and interesting read.... but the initial gloss-over I had revealed all the usual things that continue to frustrate and exasperate me....

Why won't people that attend to these issues do some neuroscience...where the only example of a real "observer" exists.? Why does characterising the actual reality get continually conflated with characterisation of the reality as it appears to the observer (with a brain/scientist observer I mean)? Why does scientific measurement continue to get conflated with scientific observation which continues to get conflated with scientific evidence which then gets confusedly applied to systems of description which are conflated with actual reality?

There _is_ a view  from nowhere!
It is acquired with objectivity, which originates in a totally subjective capacity delivered by the observer's brain material. In a room of 100 scientists in an auditorium there are 100 subjective views and ZERO objective views. There is ONE 'as-if' '/virtual objective view which is defined by agreement between multiple observers. But no "measurement" is going on. There's 100 entities 'BEING' in the universe.

The Van Frassen discussion seems to conflate 'being' somewhere and 'observing'. A table lamp gets to BE. It is intimately part of its surrounds and has a unique perspective on everything that is 'not table lamp', but the lamp NOT observing in the sense scientists observe (with a brain). A brain is in the universe in the same way a table lamp is in the universe - yet the organisation of the brain (same kind of atoms/molecules) results in a capacity to scientifically observe. This 'observe' and the 'observe' that is literally BEING a table lamp, are not the same thing! Grrrrrrrrrrrr!

This conflation has been going on for 100 years.

I vote we make neuroscience mandatory for all physicists. Then maybe one day they'll really understand what 'OBSERVATION' is and the difference between it and 'BEING', 'MEASUREMENT and 'EVIDENCE' and _then_ what you can do with evidence.

There. Vent is complete. That's better. Phew!

:-)

Colin Hales.



Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Friends,
Please check out the following paper by Bas C. van Fraassen for many ideas that have gone into my posts so far, in particular the argument against the idea of a “view from nowhere”. www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/*Rovelli_sWorld*-*FIN*.pdf <http://www.princeton.edu/%7Efraassen/abstract/Rovelli_sWorld-FIN.pdf> Onward! Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to