On 9/24/2012 11:02 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>:

On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
Hi John,

I expected better from you! This quip is based on the premise that "you" are the only observer involved. Such nonsense! Considering that there are a HUGE number of observers of the moon, the effects of the observations of any one is negligible. If none of them measure the presence of the moon or its effects, then the existence of the moon becomes pure the object of speculation. Note that being affected by the moon in terms of tidal effects is a measurement!

So who or what counts as an observer. Young's slit experiments on fullerenes seem to indicate that a few IR photons or gas molecules qualify.



If I don't observe it, then it doesn't matter who/what else observes something, the rest of the universe is still a superposition. It doesn't matter whether or not an interference pattern can be detected.


Dear Saibal,

If you are operating under the stipulation that each observer is uniquely isolated from all others, then I agree with you. But I hope you understand the long range implications if this as it opens wide the need for an explanation for the appearance of interactions/mutual consistencies between observers.




You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to