Comment: In the total "objective view" (that is no subjects at all) the Copenhagen interpretation is explained in this way: every "observation" is an interaction. So when a scientist is trying to observe, that is measure, an elementary particle he interacts with it. Of course, the particle being much smaller than the scientist and his aperture, is much more affected than the scientist is: but if the scientist was unaffected he wouldn't get any "measure" at all. At the opposite end, you have astronomical observations. In this case the scientist just needs to interact with a very small portion of the object observed: if he tried, for instance, to measure the sun directly, the impact from the sun would affect him so hard that he seizes to exist. If you try to observe someone on your own lever, you will affect each other about as much. This is the problem of psychiatry. The psychiatrist is as affected by the patient as the patient is by the psychiatrist. Of course, this is just the opposite notion from the MoQ, but if the duality relation between the two holds, it should be useful anyway.
/A -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andre Broersen Sent: den 28 oktober 2010 12:33 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value Ham to Alex, Mark, Andre [Adrie mentioned]: I can accept "observation" as a synonym for "experience" in delineating or actualizing essents (objects).However, I cannot comprehend how observation can occur without an "observer". Andre: Here is the full Annotation Ham ( I noticed I had omitted the term 'intellectual'): Annotn. 65. 'It seems close but I think it is really very far apart. In the Copenhagen Interpretation, and in all subject-object metaphysics, both the observed (the object) and the observer (the subject) are assumed to exist prior to the observation. In the MOQ, nothing exists prior to the observation. The observation creates the intellectual patterns called "observed" and "observer." Think about it. How could a subject and object exist in a world where there are no observations?' But when you say:'... I cannot comprehend how observation can occur without an 'observer'.' you are absolutely correct. But where does it say that? What the MOQ argues is that the observer and that which is observed arise together. You cannot have the one without the other. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
