I confess to the usual level of exasperation. Yet again the great culturally maintained mental block subverts real progress. And, yet again, the participant doesn;t even know they are doing it. Garrett says ....

/"The key is that observers are just a particular type of information, as is everything else. That is, we assume that the Physical Church Turing Thesis (PCTT) ..blah blah blah...."

The author has somehow remained completely uninformed by the real message in the consciousness material cited in the article.

*Observers are NOT just a particular type of information!!!!*

The word information _was defined by an observer_, a human, USING observation. Like every other word it's just a metaphoric description of as thing, with meaning to a human. No matter what logical steps one proceeds to enact from this juncture, you are not describing anything that can be used to build or explain an observer. You are merely describing what an observer will see.

What does it take to get something so simple across to physics?

I'll have yet another go at it.

Consider a SET_X =  {BALL1, BALL2, BALL3, BALL4}
This is a traditional 3-rd person (3P) view of the set created by a scientific act of OBSERVATION of the set of balls. BALL SET SCIENCE then proceeds to construct very clever mathematical descriptions of set member behaviour.


If you are the observer = BALL1, INSIDE SET X, the very act of observation results from the 1ST PERSON (1-P) relationship between [you, observer = BALL 1 ] and [the rest of the set, from within SET_X]. This description is not the same as the above description of SET_X!!!! Can't anyone see that ?? The ability to observe anything arises from that circumstance, not from the 3P-circumstance constructed by having observed.

Science has not even begun to characterise SET_X   in the 1P way.

Every single attempt so far in science has the following generic form.....

I am human scientist FRED. How we humans do observation is a real mystery. I like mysteries. And I am really good at maths. I will do the very clever maths of observation. Now where do I begin.......ASSUMING OBSERVATION ....... blah blah blah.....

Then off we go into the weeds, YET AGAIN.

FRED just doesn't get the difference between 1-P and 3-P. It's a systemic blindness.

I'll just crawl off and fume for a while. I'll be OK soon enough! :-)

Colin Hales
<if you can't formulaically predict/build an observer with what you produced, you haven't explained observation and you don't really understand it>

ronaldheld wrote:
   Any comments?

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to