Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

31828dense

Expand Messages
  • Mary Jo
    Dec 29, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill, I tried reading it late last night which was a futile effort,
      but your comments are interesting. Off the cuff, (where did that come
      from?), I'd say Zurek is making a proposal which he acknowledges will
      take some time to prove. There are many levels of observation, many
      intensities, so perhaps the predeterministic aspects of his theory
      apply only to subliminal or automatic observations. Also, is a story
      about an observation the same as an observation? Overall, I'd say
      he's moving in the right direction, but as is typical with much of
      scientific explanation, it's far too complicated. There is probably a
      much simpler way to state his ideas. The concept of redundancy is
      absorbing my thoughts right now. He seems to say that the more
      observers there are, the more stable or fit the observed will be. I'm
      not sure I buy that. Would that mean that if more people were
      directly interested and absorbed in the floor of the Indian Ocean,
      there might not have been an earthquake and subsequent tsunami? Or is
      he saying that such macro events can't even be observed only
      witnessed from a skewed relativity? I actually prefer the math &
      physics of a revised solipsistic phenomenology which says that we
      each 'manufacture' a universe in our brains, which is afterall our
      subjective reality, and that we are each viewing our own copy, which
      is a kind of redundancy subject to individual misinterpretation.
      We're mimicking one another so that we can have an objective medium
      in which to communicate. If you look at how the brain receives and
      interprets what it observes, it's strictly an individual experience.
      Through language we can talk about what we're experiencing, try to
      explain it; but let's face it, it's not easy. It's a relativity
      problem. And if you throw in majorly flawed copies, due to biological
      damage, things get really complicated. Then it seems people really do
      live in separate universes. For me, words are the coin of the realm
      and the beginning of unlocking such fundamental explanations. How
      many people does it take to observe something before there is a
      consensus that it's real? Do we need to observe everything? Can we?
      Do we need to? Miles to go . . . but just a nanosecond away. Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@m...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Mary, I read the paper and it seems I must be in a nearly transed
      > mind frame to begin to synthesize what he is talking about.
      > His statement that we never interact directly with quantum states
      > leaves me with a feeling of being manipulated by probability
      > distributions I do not select. It is as if only classical states
      can
      > be gleaned from any observation. This seems very predeterministic.
      > In such a case our own selection of observation through genetic
      > darwanism would preclude free will and force us to the "right
      road"
      > of discovery. In this case a preclivity such as Bookdocs interest
      > would be predetermined as a pointed state and force him into a
      > determined and proper state as derived by an irrational and oddly
      > selected quantum information spectrum. Why the collapse of
      competing
      > probabilities? Then again there is so much observational material
      > that is flawed from a classical viewpoint. Because an observation
      > survives are we to grant it validity? In the biblical loaves and
      > fishes observation the deciples hand out food from no apparent
      > source. That story has been repeated billions of times , still
      > impresses billions of minds, is derived from observation and is
      > bogus from the classical concepts of acquisation.
      > The author calls the paper an existential construct but in many
      > ways it makes us the whores of the irrational . Then again a
      > probability distrabution is also an observation of an idea in
      > graphic or numerical notation. We are relying on a guess about a
      > guess. Bill
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic