If the event caused is an appearance (or a disjunction of appearances) then we still seem to have "observation" in a more psychological sense imported into QM don't we?The 'observer' in QM has a causal role: the physical set-up of the apparatus will cause, in a double-slit experiment, light to appear as either a wave or a particle
In 1958, Schrödinger, inspired by Schopenhauer from youth, published his lectures Mind and Matter. Here he argued that there is a difference between measuring instruments and human observation: a thermometer’s registration cannot be considered an act of observation, as it contains no meaning in itself. Thus, consciousness is needed to make physical reality meaningful.
If the event caused is an appearance (or a disjunction of appearances) then we still seem to have "observation" in a more psychological sense imported into QM don't we? — jkg20
Perhaps that's a good question, but it is one that has nothing to do with quantum physics. — StreetlightX
Still not seeing how 'measurement' means anything different at all in QM — snowleopard
Greene is correct: it isn't the effect of clumsy experimenters, it is the nature of quantum effects to be determined by the physical appartus in that manner — StreetlightX
Patterson of course, also doesn't say anything about 'clumsy exprimenters — StreetlightX
In a nutshell: in order to “observe” things at a quantum level, it requires specialized devices, which necessarily “interact” with whatever is being observed in order to work.
In a nutshell: in order to “observe” things at a quantum level, it requires specialized devices, which necessarily “interact” with whatever is being observed in order to work.
= clumsy experimenters. — Wayfarer
I just think Kastrup does a disservice to the position he is arguing — jkg20
Kastrup's claims depend on a narrow definition of realism as counterfactual definiteness, not as mind-independence
— Andrew M
You lost me there, Andrew. Care to elucidate the distinction? — Wayfarer
it is traditional to denote this something as the observer, but it is important in the following discussion to keep in mind that the observer can be a table lamp.
— Relational Quantum Mechanics - Carlo Rovelli
↪Andrew M This would seem to be a radical redefinition of the word 'observer.' Surely any claim whatsoever can be rationalized, if you arbitrarily redefine words so that what you want to claim then ends up making linguistic sense. — snowleopard
This process occurs independently of conscious observers being present. — Andrew M
From where do you derive your certainty concerning the meaning to be given to terms like "observation" and "measurement" in QM? — jkg20
So says a conscious observer. Again, I repeat the question: What exactly is a measurement absent a conscious agent to calculate a measurement from the reactive apparatus, if that measurement apparatus itself is observer-dependent, without which isn't it all just in potentia? — snowleopard
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.