Dear Colin,
Let me put you are ease, van Fraassen has sympathies with the frustrations
that you have mentioned here and I share them as well, but let's look closely
at the point that you make here as I think that it does to the heart of several
problems related to the notion of an observer. OTOH, it seems to me that you
are suggesting that the objective view is just a form of consensus between all
of those subjective view, no? Also, the notion of a measurement is discussed in
detail in the paper. I wonder if you read far enough to see it...If we buy the
computationalist interpretation of the mind then there is nothing necessarily
special about a human brain; the discussions about computational universality
give us a good argument for that.
First of all we need to admit that if we are to be consistent with the
mathematical prescriptions of quantum mechanics, each and every one of those
scientists and table lamps, as physical objects, have a wave function of sorts
associated with them and, assuming that they could interact, are entangled with
each other. “Being in the universe” implies to me that that there is a sharing
of context and maybe even a common basis of sorts. But is that all there is to
it? Hardly! being a table lamp, when considered from the quantum perspective is
not so simple. We cannot assume that there is any definiteness of properties in
a sharp sense. When we consider a Table Lamp or any other physical object in
isolation at best we have a superposition of possible properties, and what is
the outcome of measurement is given in terms of restrictions upon those
possibilities by the possible properties and modes of possible interaction of
all of the tables, chairs, beds, etc. that are in the room with that table lamp
and beyond. We cannot assume that what something ‘is’ is somehow invariant with
respect to changes in the interactions that it has with all of the other
objects. This is a very subtle point that need to be carefully considered.
The notion of a Table lamp in isolation literally dissolves into nothing
when we remove all those other objects upon which its definiteness of state
persists. The conflation that has persistent for more than 2000 years is the
idea that object in themselves are what they are. I am reminded of Einstein’s
quit to Bohr that the moon would still exists if he was not looking at it. My
response to Einstein is that he is not the only one interacting with the moon.
We need to take the whole web of interactions into account when we consider the
definiteness of properties otherwise we are only considering bare existence and
that tell us nothing at all about properties.
Onward!
Stephen
From: Colin Hales
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: A paper by Bas C. van Fraassen
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
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3211 - Release Date: 10/21/10
14:34:00
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
