Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: Love and Free Will
On 5/1/2011 1:05 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> Observer: I generalize the term to anything getting into relational
> connection with anything else, not restricted to 'conscious'
> (horribile dictu: "human"?) observers. So I would not call 'it' a
> "he". My question was: can a mental object (thought?) be observing in
> my sense? (That would be an extension to a 'physical' view).
"Relational connection" is very broad, so I'd say it's certainly
possible for a mental object, a thought, to have a relational connection
to another mental object (one thought follows another) or to a physical
object (I thought of a chair). When we speak of observing and observers
there is usually an implication that others could also observe the
'same' thing (allowing for points of view differences). This is why
Bohr emphasized the logical priority of the classical in empirical science.
What you are stating here is the first hint of the idea of diffeomorphism
invariance that we are looking for! The fact that “others could also observe
the 'same' thing” is the essence of the idea that we can stitch coordinate
systems to each other to make space-time manifold quilts. The trick is to show
OMs are like coordinate systems.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at