Hi,
Looks like and interesting read but the initial gloss-over I had
revealed all the usual things that continue to frustrate and exasperate
me
Why won't people that attend to these issues do some
neuroscience...where the only example of a real observer exists.?
Why does characterising the actual reality get continually conflated
with characterisation of the reality as it appears to the observer (with
a brain/scientist observer I mean)?
Why does scientific measurement continue to get conflated with
scientific observation which continues to get conflated with scientific
evidence which then gets confusedly applied to systems of description
which are conflated with actual reality?
There _is_ a view from nowhere!
It is acquired with objectivity, which originates in a totally
subjective capacity delivered by the observer's brain material.
In a room of 100 scientists in an auditorium there are 100 subjective
views and ZERO objective views. There is ONE 'as-if' '/virtual objective
view which is defined by agreement between multiple observers. But no
measurement is going on. There's 100 entities 'BEING' in the universe.
The Van Frassen discussion seems to conflate 'being' somewhere and
'observing'. A table lamp gets to BE. It is intimately part of its
surrounds and has a unique perspective on everything that is 'not table
lamp', but the lamp NOT observing in the sense scientists observe (with
a brain). A brain is in the universe in the same way a table lamp is in
the universe - yet the organisation of the brain (same kind of
atoms/molecules) results in a capacity to scientifically observe. This
'observe' and the 'observe' that is literally BEING a table lamp, are
not the same thing! G!
This conflation has been going on for 100 years.
I vote we make neuroscience mandatory for all physicists. Then maybe one
day they'll really understand what 'OBSERVATION' is and the difference
between it and 'BEING', 'MEASUREMENT and 'EVIDENCE' and _then_ what you
can do with evidence.
There. Vent is complete. That's better. Phew!
:-)
Colin Hales.
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Friends,
Please check out the following paper by Bas C. van Fraassen for
many ideas that have gone into my posts so far, in particular the
argument against the idea of a “view from nowhere”.
www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/*Rovelli_sWorld*-*FIN*.pdf
http://www.princeton.edu/%7Efraassen/abstract/Rovelli_sWorld-FIN.pdf
Onward!
Stephen
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
