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.
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
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
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.
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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at