Who is observing us?

[HinduWoman]

So if the universe is created by our observation, who is observing us?
Who is observing me and making me real?
:hide:

[Norrin Radd]

I dunno, Heisenberg?

[ofro]

The fact that we can observe an object doesn't necessitate that an object is observing us.
Doesn't exclude it, either.

[Eudaimonist]

So if the universe is created by our observation, who is observing us?

What leads you to think that the universe is created by our observation?


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Garrett]

Some of it is, at least.

[premjan]

"Observation" just means interaction / entanglement of micro and macro quantum wave functions. As we are macroscopic, we are already entangled with everything else.

[Matty]

So if the universe is created by our observation, who is observing us?
Who is observing me and making me real?
:hide:

you are. we are self aware are we not?

[dug_down_deep]

Pics or it never happened.

[Matty]

would do but i'm scared that if i take a picture of me observing myself, it mean my camera is God, or summin like that. Dont want to get caught out by the small print y'know.

[Ray Moscow]

Obviously the universe did not exist until some of its denizens evolved the capacity to perceive it. The rest is pre-history.

[ofro]

If nobody observes the universe, is it still there?

If nobody observes us, are we still there?

[Matty]

if a man speaks in the middle of a forest and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?

[Barbarian]

So if the universe is created by our observation, who is observing us?
Who is observing me and making me real?
:hide:Yanking chains, are we?

Observation does nothing of the sort. That's Copenhagen mumbo-jumbo. The many-worlds mumbo-jumbo is much different, of course, and at least it does not have to regard observation as a special thingy. Special thingies should be very different, and usually they are made of rubber.

Also, no one is observing anything, observation simply proceeds. In related news, there is no spoon.

[Garrett]

The many-worlds mumbo-jumbo is much different, of course,
Is not. Apparently though it fulfills some emotional need of yours. But other than that a stupider theory is hard to find.

Agree with the rest of your post though, maybe. ;)

[Garrett]

Also, no one is observing anything, observation simply proceeds. In related news, there is no spoon.
So in Barbie's world people don't make observations. :rolleyes:

[Barbarian]

Humour impairment itt?

[RAFH]

I'm watching you all.

And I'm getting it all on video.

And no, I'm not going to share the royalties as none of ya have any fine print on your buttocks suggesting I have to.

[Barbarian]

I'm watching you all.

And I'm getting it all on video.

And no, I'm not going to share the royalties as none of ya have any fine print on your buttocks suggesting I have to.In that case, may I ask for a porn video featuring Beyoncè Knowles? It's in your best interest to deliver; after all, until I haven't observed it, the video does not even exist, and your existence is somewhat in doubt, too.

[BWE]

would do but i'm scared that if i take a picture of me observing myself, it mean my camera is God, or summin like that. Dont want to get caught out by the small print y'know.

NSFW anyway.

[RAFH]

I'm watching you all.

And I'm getting it all on video.

And no, I'm not going to share the royalties as none of ya have any fine print on your buttocks suggesting I have to.In that case, may I ask for a porn video featuring Beyoncè Knowles? It's in your best interest to deliver; after all, until I haven't observed it, the video does not even exist, and your existence is somewhat in doubt, too.

Undoubtedly.

[BioBeing]

So if the universe is created by our observation, who is observing us?
Who is observing me and making me real?
:hide:
(a) Ceiling cat?
(b) why do you need observing to become real?
(c) whoever said the universe is created by observation was talking shit?

[HinduWoman]

So if the universe is created by our observation, who is observing us?

What leads you to think that the universe is created by our observation?


eudaimonia,

Mark

That is what some people reading up on Quantum theory tell me! :D

[HinduWoman]

if a man speaks in the middle of a forest and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?

there are women in potentia to hear him, so he is still wrong!

[HinduWoman]

Also, no one is observing anything, observation simply proceeds. In related news, there is no spoon.

I have already observed that. That is why Indians eat finger food.

[Garrett]

So if the universe is created by our observation, who is observing us?

What leads you to think that the universe is created by our observation?


eudaimonia,

Mark

That is what some people reading up on Quantum theory tell me! :D
But the "observer" part doesn't indicate the observer is aware or conscious. Basically, when atoms bounce off each other they have "observed" each other.

From Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm):
In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings.

To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.

[dug_down_deep]

(a) Ceiling cat?
And Chuck Norris. So straighten up.

[ofro]

What leads you to think that the universe is created by our observation?


eudaimonia,

Mark

That is what some people reading up on Quantum theory tell me! :D
But the "observer" part doesn't indicate the observer is aware or conscious. Basically, when atoms bounce off each other they have "observed" each other.

From Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm):
In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings.

To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.

There may be a few non-intuitive processes occurring on the level of single particles, but this this does not mean that you can postulate such observer-dependent effects on the macroscopic level. It's nice and easy classical physics here.

[wordy]

My naive guess is that those who claim that we create the world by observing it is using words in a way that is misleading. Most likely they are belonging to a kind of philosophical group that love to make such claims. A kind of rhetoric game they play.

[Barbarian]

What leads you to think that the universe is created by our observation?


eudaimonia,

Mark

That is what some people reading up on Quantum theory tell me! :D
But the "observer" part doesn't indicate the observer is aware or conscious. Basically, when atoms bounce off each other they have "observed" each other.The journalist who wrote the Science Daily article uses scare quotes around "observation", so he is at least aware that in the given setting this is not its usual meaning. In fact the article, and you as quoted above, seem to hold that observation is merely interaction, which is the central tenet of relative-state interpretation and in stark contrast with Copenhagen, so your earlier mini-rant at me for even mentioning relative state many worlds is even less understandable than before.

As for the origin of the claim HinduWoman presents in the OP: nowadays, Copenhagen interpretation proponents adopt an extremely shy "don't ask, don't tell" policy wrt the nature of observation, but in the glorious olden days their claim was that it is conscious observation that collapses the state vector, a claim which by its exquisite woo-ness prompted, among others, the development of relative-state interpretation. But before the Copenhagen crowd shut up about this embarrassing issue, the meme "conscious observation alters the physical world" escaped into the world of woo and survives there to this day. My guess is that HinduWoman encountered the claim from such a source.

[Anne]

I'm watching you all.

And I'm getting it all on video.

And no, I'm not going to share the royalties as none of ya have any fine print on your buttocks suggesting I have to.

note to self: get butt tattoo.

[Barbarian]

I'm watching you all.

And I'm getting it all on video.

And no, I'm not going to share the royalties as none of ya have any fine print on your buttocks suggesting I have to.

note to self: get butt tattoo.Note to RAFH: record video of tattoo being done, for future reference.

[RAFH]

I'm watching you all.

And I'm getting it all on video.

And no, I'm not going to share the royalties as none of ya have any fine print on your buttocks suggesting I have to.

note to self: get butt tattoo.Note to RAFH: record video of tattoo being done, for future reference.

In Anne's selected tattoo parlor as in Heaven, it will be done.

If ya care at all, I'm really partial to the flowery, Art Nouveau styles, right above the coccyx. Yeah, baby.

[HinduWoman]

As for the origin of the claim HinduWoman presents in the OP: nowadays, Copenhagen interpretation proponents adopt an extremely shy "don't ask, don't tell" policy wrt the nature of observation, but in the glorious olden days their claim was that it is conscious observation that collapses the state vector, a claim which by its exquisite woo-ness prompted, among others, the development of relative-state interpretation. But before the Copenhagen crowd shut up about this embarrassing issue, the meme "conscious observation alters the physical world" escaped into the world of woo and survives there to this day. My guess is that HinduWoman encountered the claim from such a source.

You got it right! :hug:

Many people want to believe it because it bolsters up faith in God, I think.

[premjan]

Nowadays they just say that a local wave function dissipates when it comes into contact with a more global wave function, and becomes entangled with it.

[Valheru]

My naive guess is that those who claim that we create the world by observing it is using words in a way that is misleading. Most likely they are belonging to a kind of philosophical group that love to make such claims. A kind of rhetoric game they play.

Well... it's nihilistic fallibilism by the book, really. Any reality is subjective, when you get right down to it. Everything could merely be an illusion.

BUT, even if this were true, simply because you could never prove such a claim, doesn't it make the subjective reality objectively real, and thus a fundamental truth, for lack of any possible counter-evidence?

[dug_down_deep]

For you, maybe. :p

[epepke]

Observation does nothing of the sort. That's Copenhagen mumbo-jumbo.

It's von Neuman mumbo-jumbo. Copenhagen mumbo-jumbo is "shut up and calculate."

[Valheru]

For you, maybe. :p

It's obvious that you grok it in fullness! :D