Susan's Place Logo

News:

According to Google Analytics 25,259,719 users made visits accounting for 140,758,117 Pageviews since December 2006

Main Menu

Who or what observes you?

Started by lady amarant, April 11, 2008, 07:40:24 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lady amarant

Somebody's probably going to come along and blow this out of the water, but it's been circling in my head for months now, so I thought I'd put it to the esteemed panel...

Sitting quietly, I can observe my body, my hand, my memories, my emotions, my reactions, my thoughts themselves as they flit past. Especially as you master meditation, you find that "you" are distinctly seperate from everything people generally consider as making up a living thing.

So what are "you" then?

~Simone.
  •  

Pica Pica

a creature with enough imagination and consciousness to picture yourself outside of yourself. I'd guess.
'For the circle may be squared with rising and swelling.' Kit Smart
  •  

tekla

As long as I line my hats with tinfoil they can't know what I'm thinking.  You should try it.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

lady amarant

Isn't an imagination also just a thought independant of you that can be observed? And yeah Tekla, the tinfoil really does work against 'them', but what if it's inside "you" ... muahahahahahaha!!!  :P

~Simone.
  •  

tekla

oh Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

Lisbeth

Quote from: lady amarant on April 11, 2008, 07:40:24 AM
So what are "you" then?

An object reference to an imaginary process.
"Anyone who attempts to play the 'real transsexual' card should be summarily dismissed, as they are merely engaging in name calling rather than serious debate."
--Julia Serano

http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2011/09/transsexual-versus-transgender.html
  •  

tekla

You were saying something, I thought that it was nothing, but the nothing that you said, stuck in my head.

you find that "you" are distinctly seperate from everything people generally consider as making up a living thing.

That's not the vision.  The vision is the web of life, seeing how everything in the universe is connected to everything else.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

lady amarant

See, the reason I am asking is this:

Quantum physics says that, until something is observed, it doesn't exist, it is simply a set of probabilities, all existing at the same time. So my question was really: What, within this framework, is causing the innermost you, the part that NOBODY else observes, to exist?

~Simone.

Posted on: 11 April 2008, 09:26:11
Or can a probablity observe itself and so manifest?

Or can a reality spontaneously arise from a set of probabilities?

Or if you are a subscriber to the many-worlds interpretation instead, is every me observing every other me?:P

(Getting silly now, still the vodka speaking, I suspect)

~Simone
  •  

NicholeW.

Quote from: lady amarant on April 11, 2008, 09:28:04 AM
Quantum physics says that, until something is observed, it doesn't exist, it is simply a set of probabilities, all existing at the same time. So my question was really: What, within this framework, is causing the innermost you, the part that NOBODY else observes, to exist?

~Simone.

Posted on: 11 April 2008, 09:26:11
Or can a probablity observe itself and so manifest?
Or can a reality spontaneously arise from a set of probabilities?

Or if you are a subscriber to the many-worlds interpretation instead, is every me observing every other me?:P
(Getting silly now, still the vodka speaking, I suspect)

~Simone

There are trillions of jewels that string Indra's net. Each jewel is trillion faceted and reflects each other jewel. The reflections form the mesh of Indra's net and nothing escapes from it.

"I" exists as a bit of that combined sentience. Ego, a terrified construct, believes itself to be independent and knows itself to be mortal. When mind, soul and body bridle ego, then the paradoxes resolve and "I" am known as a grain of the process, not the process itself. Observation is internal and systemic -- the process observes itself.  

N~

Now, get on widcha!
  •  

christene

Simply....You are the universe trying to understand itself....
  •  

tekla

There's no dark side of the moon really.  Matter of fact, it's all dark.

And I don't think that quantum physics says that because something is unobserved it does not exist.  Its closer to 'unless observed it is an unknown.' Nor, does QP speculate on how many things might be observing in all sorts of ways.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

Floating

Actually, Quantum Mechanics more specifically says that until observed we can't know what what state a system is in.  Until a measurement is made, it's in a superposition of states, with probabilities corresponding to each state.  This argument can be somewhat extended to the state of existing or not existing.

A good (and free) article about it can be found from Physics Today (1985). 

"Is the moon there when nobody looks?" 
by Mermin

It mainly deals with the EPR paradox, but it's a really easy and enjoyable read for non-physicists. You can find it really easily by looking on google scholar.


  •  

Lisbeth

Quote from: lady amarant on April 11, 2008, 09:28:04 AM
Quantum physics says that, until something is observed, it doesn't exist, it is simply a set of probabilities, all existing at the same time.

Quantum physics only says that observing something changes it.  It's existance or nonexistance prior to (and after) observation is unknown.
"Anyone who attempts to play the 'real transsexual' card should be summarily dismissed, as they are merely engaging in name calling rather than serious debate."
--Julia Serano

http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2011/09/transsexual-versus-transgender.html
  •  

tekla

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.  --  Donald Rumsfeld, explaining the quantum mechanics of the Gulf War, which, of course, is better suited to Chaos Theory.


until observed we can't know what what state a system is in
  --  This is of course true, but, its a reference to the observer, not the state in and of itself.  We may not know the state of the matter, or of the energy, but we can be sure they exist independent of our observation.  Quantum mechanics is more an insight into our flawed way of measuring and observing, not a commentary on the existence or nonexistence of the material world in the first place. 

That to the degree that we don't observe it, it is vaguely 'not there' - but that 'not there' is true for us, not for the universe. 

Quantum physics is more or less an abuse of probability, albeit for a good reason.  Still while people marvel at the fact that the table or the chair exists as little more than a probability string, of things that are more or less attributed to be there - though we can't be sure -  that ignore the fact that in each instant probability becomes reality, it becomes certain, it did or it did not.  And that's what keeps the chair together, not the probability, but probability becoming certain. 

We might not know if the cat is dead or alive (or perhaps a Zombie Schrödinger's Cat - dead, yet un-dead at the same time.)  Or even that its a cat.  But we can know if something is in the box.  And if we wait long enough the smell will tell us if the cat is dead or alive, why rush it? 

I just love the Heisenberg uncertainty principle though.  You know that the Baptists still have their knickers in a twist about Darwin, wait till they read on in the science book and get to this.  First of all, it says that its impossible to know everything. (Sorry there T.V. Reverend)  Second it says that the act of observing, in and of itself, somehow changes things.  That is a delicious idea.  Something in the process is somehow changing reality. 

So, now that I've thought it, there is Schrödinger's Zombie Cat.  With lasers.  Yeah.  That would be really cool.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

Chaunte

Quote from: lady amarant on April 11, 2008, 09:28:04 AM
See, the reason I am asking is this:

Quantum physics says that, until something is observed, it doesn't exist, it is simply a set of probabilities, all existing at the same time. So my question was really: What, within this framework, is causing the innermost you, the part that NOBODY else observes, to exist?

~Simone.

Posted on: 11 April 2008, 09:26:11

Or can a probablity observe itself and so manifest?

Or can a reality spontaneously arise from a set of probabilities?

Or if you are a subscriber to the many-worlds interpretation instead, is every me observing every other me?:P

(Getting silly now, still the vodka speaking, I suspect)

~Simone

One thought is that the universe itself is the result of the intersection of 11-dimension spacetime.  Indeed, universes may be as common as bubbles on a wave that is rolling on shore.  This "reality" is nothing more than a series of intersecting probabilities.

Parallel worlds...  If there are such things, I suggest that the only possible parallel universes would be the universe bubbles that are attached to each other.  Some other group of universes would be the result of other intersections of spacetime.

BUt I am not a physicist.  Nor do I play one on television. 

Chaunte
  •  

Ell

Quote from: Lisbeth on April 11, 2008, 12:57:00 PM
Quote from: lady amarant on April 11, 2008, 09:28:04 AM
Quantum physics says that, until something is observed, it doesn't exist, it is simply a set of probabilities, all existing at the same time.

Quantum physics only says that observing something changes it.  It's existance or nonexistance prior to (and after) observation is unknown.

yeah, i wouldn't stop right there at quantum physics, anyway, as chaos theory suggests that there is at least the potential (or is it a certainty?) for an equally complex system at whatever level is observed. so, it may not be reasonable to ever expect to reach the core components. 

-ell
  •  

Lisbeth

Quote from: ell on April 13, 2008, 01:04:36 PM
Quote from: Lisbeth on April 11, 2008, 12:57:00 PM
Quote from: lady amarant on April 11, 2008, 09:28:04 AM
Quantum physics says that, until something is observed, it doesn't exist, it is simply a set of probabilities, all existing at the same time.

Quantum physics only says that observing something changes it.  It's existance or nonexistance prior to (and after) observation is unknown.

yeah, i wouldn't stop right there at quantum physics, anyway, as chaos theory suggests that there is at least the potential (or is it a certainty?) for an equally complex system at whatever level is observed. so, it may not be reasonable to ever expect to reach the core components. 

-ell

This is very similar to a conversation I had with one of my physics professors in 1974 that resulted in my not going for a doctor's degree.  What was the good in pursuing the unknowable?
"Anyone who attempts to play the 'real transsexual' card should be summarily dismissed, as they are merely engaging in name calling rather than serious debate."
--Julia Serano

http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2011/09/transsexual-versus-transgender.html
  •  

lady amarant

Quote from: Lisbeth on April 14, 2008, 08:10:40 AM
This is very similar to a conversation I had with one of my physics professors in 1974 that resulted in my not going for a doctor's degree.  What was the good in pursuing the unknowable?

Because nothing else is as worth knowing.

It's wonder. Pure and simple. The joy of finding true magic. I mean, what could be more magical than finding out that the whole universe might have been created because some particle called a Higgs slipped a bit?

~Simone.
  •  

Alyssa M.

Douglas Hofstadter's GEB:EGB is the best description of consciousness and other emergent properties I've ever read. I tend to basically agree with the ideas he expresses there. I highly recommended it. (Especially for someone like you, Simone.)

As to QM, I don't understand why so many otherwise-reasonable physicists buy many-worlds. It's totally crazy and maximally unparsimonious IMO. I tend to buy the "decoherence" approach that tekla hinted at; it's the only one that acknowledges our ignorance of what measurement apparatuses actually do (at a quantum level), and that other things (i.e. stray photons) might mimic them. But I'm mostly in the "shut up and calculate" camp. Until you can actually come up with an experimentally observable effect to distinguish your interpretation, you're just counting angels on pinheads.
All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another.

   - Anatole France
  •  

NicholeW.

Quote from: Alyssa M. on April 14, 2008, 04:51:31 PM
Douglas Hofstadter's GEB:EGB is the best description of consciousness and other emergent properties I've ever read. I tend to basically agree with the ideas he expresses there. I highly recommended it. (Especially for someone like you, Simone.)

As to QM, I don't understand why so many otherwise-reasonable physicists buy many-worlds. It's totally crazy and maximally unparsimonious IMO. I tend to buy the "decoherence" approach that tekla hinted at; it's the only one that acknowledges our ignorance of what measurement apparatuses actually do (at a quantum level), and that other things (i.e. stray photons) might mimic them. But I'm mostly in the "shut up and calculate" camp. Until you can actually come up with an experimentally observable effect to distinguish your interpretation, you're just counting angels on pinheads.

Good citation about Eternal Golden Braids, Simone!! Metamagical Themas is another very nice work by the same author and yet another The Mind's I.

N~
  •