[om-list] Re: Observation

[Tom and other Packers]

Mark

    The thing is, aren't all thing just collections of qualities?  And if
you can bring one quality into existence by simple observation (e.g. the
quality of being a wave or a particle), why can you not bring the complete
set of qualities into existence?

    And what of all those examples in The Holographic Universe, e.g.
stigmatists apparently bringing wounds and whole nails into existence.  The
question would then be, did those events actually happen?  And why could
they not?  Are they physically impossible?  Not if you believe in the
miracles of the New Testament.  I guess I need go no further than the New
Testament, if Michael Talbot is in any danger of being doubted.  Where did
the fish and the loaves come from?  Where did the whole physical world come
from, but from someone's thoughts and conscious attention?

    No, I don't think we change the nature of the universe with
observations.  But I do believe that we have the power to change physical
things, and certainly cause the creation of abstract qualities, such as
health and happiness, by faith, if not create whole objects.

tomp

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Butler" <butlerm at middle.net>
To: <tomp>
Cc: "One Model List" <om-list at onemodel.org>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 2:48 PM
Subject: [om-list] Re: Observation


Tom,

My requirement was much looser - I said that the *existence* of an
independently existing object is not contigent upon the thought process
of an isolated observer.  No amount of thought by any external observer
can bring a real object into or out of existence.  This applies to
objects both mental and physical.  The extent of the interference that
the thought process of any real observer might cause to the nature of
the thing being observed is another matter.

Any real process of observation, in any conceivable universe, causes
some interference simply because the observer cannot be completely
separated from the system being observed.  However, the nature of
interference is not qualitatively dependent on the thought processes of
the observer.  It doesn't matter to any significant degree to the rest
of the system what the observer believes about his perceptions until he
takes action in consequence of them.

Some would argue that according to quantum mechanics any process of
observation causes a significant global change to the state of the
universe, making a minimally interfering observational device physically
impossible.

However, in quantum mechanics, there is no physical definition of what
an "observation" is.  The idea of an instantaneous global quantum wave
function collapse caused by an extra-physical process of observation is
ludicrous and nearly all quantum physicists recognize that, which is why
they are busy searching for alternatives.  David Bohm has proposed a
perfectly satisfactory ontology of quantum mechanics that requires no
such artifice.

There is no doubt that we are capable of greatly altering or even
destroying objects being observed through some processes of measurement,
but it is pure sophistry to suggest that we fundamentally change the
nature of the universe through any common perceptual or mental process.

 - Mark


Tom and other Packers wrote:
>
> Mark
>
>     My boss would disagree with you (as he disagreed with me, when I
talked
> about a similar idea).  And I'm tending to agree with him, to an extent.
>
>     What do you say about the ideas in the Holographic Universe, dealing
> with quantum mechanics and other ways in which observation and belief do
> affect external reality?
>
> tomp
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Butler" <butlerm at middle.net>
> To: "One Model List" <om-list at onemodel.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [om-list] Pragmatism
>
> Tom,
>
>  Independently existing means that the existence of a real object is not
> contigent on the quality of perception or thought of an external
> observer.  Such abstractions as language, laws, manners, and social
> conventions are real.  No change in the thought process of an isolated
> observer has any effect on the actual properties, predominance, or
> operation of such ideas in the minds of the population at large.
>
> - Mark
>
> Tom and other Packers wrote:
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >     Very interesting.
> >
> >     My comments and questions:
> >
> >     What does "independently existing" mean?
> >
> >     My axioms are worded and ordered a bit differently, but I agree with
> > what you say.
> >
> > tomp
>
> _______________________________________________
> om-list mailing list
> om-list at onemodel.org
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/om-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> om-list mailing list
> om-list at onemodel.org
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/om-list

--
Mark Butler        ( butlerm at middle.net )
Software Engineer
Epic Systems
(801)-451-4583

_______________________________________________
om-list mailing list
om-list at onemodel.org
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/om-list