When was the observer effect (physics) first observed?

[Martin Harran]

It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.

The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."

Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

[JTEM]

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.

Unrelated, or only tangentially related (and I didn't even bother, just
Googled the correct spelling of "tangentially"), this whole thing is
100% consistent with the Multiverse... especially when taken in the
context of "The Copenhagen Interpretation."

In *That* case, the Copenhagen Interpretation, the wave function is
misapplied, say, to the photon. It should be applied to the observer.

Simply (or confusingly) put: The photon exists everywhere it CAN
potentially exist, and then when you observe/measure it you lock YOU
into whatever version of the universe where that photon exists in
THAT particular point in SpaceTime.

I tells ya, it's way hip groovy with bells swinging, this Multiverse
thing.

AND WE KNOW THAT THE MULTIVERSE IS CORRECT, it's the right answer
because it has to be. Though Einstein doesn't name it he certainly
describes it in his Simultaneity... which supposedly has been
scientifically confirmed.

WARNING: The Multiverse isn't "Different" universes!

There's only one universe and there can only ever be one universe,
as far as we're concerned. If you could step outside our ONE universe
you wouldn't see others. In fact, even THIS ONE UNIVERSE wouldn't
exist! There would be no space for it to occupy, no moment in time
for it to exist within... there would literally be nothing at all. So
nothing can exist outside of our universe, even if it does.

Absurd? Yes. But that hardly makes it unique...

THERE ARE NO DIVIDING LINES!

Google the whole confusing "Light Cone" nonsense. In a sense, it's
your potentiality. Yours is different from mine. They diverge. So
your reality -- your version of the universe -- can be and at some
level undoubtedly is different from mine. But we can meet and
interact, though I can't think of any reason why I might want to.

So, long story short: Reality is even more f***ed up than we
normally give it credit for.

[erik simpson]

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

I've heard it said that nearly every quantum mechanician has his own
"interpretation" of what it means. De Chardin was a bit early to have
had that much influence. Feynman suggested that nobody understands
quantum mechanics but that Eistein may have been close with his "spooky
action at a distance. Newton, of course, had no precognition of quantum
mechanics, but he too was bothered by the action at a distance idea.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

I've heard it said that nearly every quantum mechanician has his own
"interpretation" of what it means. De Chardin was a bit early to have
had that much influence. Feynman suggested that nobody understands
quantum mechanics but that Einstein may have been close with his "spooky
action at a distance.

Perhaps, but they all agree about what QM predicts.
(and does not predict)

Post by erik simpson
Newton, of course, had no precognition of quantum
mechanics, but he too was bothered by the action at a distance idea.

Right, it was philosophically absurd,
in an age where they had just agreed that all explanations
of phenomena should be mechanistic, so mechanical,

Jan

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

I know we had a bit of conflict over Teilhard not long ago. I recently saw
this antiwoke douchebro James Lindsay try to take a stab at Teilhard. I
tried watching it but gave up because Lindsay is trying to forcefit
Teilhard into a weird convoluted agenda. He did a similar thing with a
video about bogeyman George Soros not long ago. Before that was Herbert
Marcuse. Before that was Foucault and postmodernism. Don’t know if you have
more stamina than I do, but here it is:

Again, I despise Lindsay but would be interested in your take on his cray
cray approach to Teilhard.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 23:44:09 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

I know we had a bit of conflict over Teilhard not long ago. I recently saw
this antiwoke douchebro James Lindsay try to take a stab at Teilhard. I
tried watching it but gave up because Lindsay is trying to forcefit
Teilhard into a weird convoluted agenda. He did a similar thing with a
video about bogeyman George Soros not long ago. Before that was Herbert
Marcuse. Before that was Foucault and postmodernism. Don’t know if you have
http://youtu.be/6YXtQhEGEXk
Again, I despise Lindsay but would be interested in your take on his cray
cray approach to Teilhard.

Sorry, I waste enough time on crazy people in my real life without
giving up nearly 2 hours of my time trying to make sense of some crazy
guy rambling on YouTube :(

[Ernest Major]

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

One example of the observer effect occurs with the use of mercury
thermometers. If you use a mercury thermometer to measure the
temperature of a flask of water, what you measure is the weighted mean
temperature of the water and the mercury (and other bits of the system),
as heat flows from one to the other to equilibriate the temperature.

The observer effect, in one form or another, may well have been one of
those things that "everyone knew". One specific example, the Hawthorne
Effect, was named in 1953. In electronics it's called the probe effect.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 09:11:14 +0100, Ernest Major

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

One example of the observer effect occurs with the use of mercury
thermometers. If you use a mercury thermometer to measure the
temperature of a flask of water, what you measure is the weighted mean
temperature of the water and the mercury (and other bits of the system),
as heat flows from one to the other to equilibriate the temperature.
The observer effect, in one form or another, may well have been one of
those things that "everyone knew". One specific example, the Hawthorne
Effect, was named in 1953. In electronics it's called the probe effect.

The Hawthorne Effect was found as a result of studies back in the
1920s/30s at the Hawthorne Western Electric plant; I happen to be
familiar with those as part of my previous business career which
involved a lot of work on employee motivation. That, however, is a
psychological/behavioural effect which I'm not sure relates directly
to what I was asking about in regard to Teilhard and QM, hence the
specific inclusion of the word *physics* in the title of my post.

[Burkhard]

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

I don't think this is specifically about QM, rather, it is
a general epistemological theory that draws on (at least) two
different traditions. One is the monist tradition from
Leibniz to Russel, Whitehead and James, the other linguistic
relativism which is even older, but became prominent in the
19th century with Humboldt, Boas and finally in the
Sapir and Whorf: We can't understand reality but through
our language (the human subject imposing its categories
on its object)but at the same time, the world/object
shapes our categories. Ultimately a dynamic, evolutionary
epistemology that is still monist in nature, but replaces
the static "pre-established harmony" of Leibniz (God made
it so that the way mind shapes matter is also truth-tracking
with an evolutionary account (over time, our concepts etc
get attuned to the outside world, to a degree)

So in this sense, it is not primarily the result of
"observation", though the observations by anthropologists
how language shapes perception played a role - and as
he himself said, he was always more an anthropologist than
a physicist.

[IDentity]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.

Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."

External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.

Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.

"There is nothing that isn't objective; there is nothing that isn't
subjective. But it is impossible to start from the objective. Only
through subjective knowledge is it possible to reach objective
knowledge. This is the axis of TAO: when the subjective and the
objective are no longer opposed." - Chuang Tzu

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by IDentity
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.

Sure. Please introspect the value of \alpha for us,

Jan

[*Hemidactylus*]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by IDentity
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.

Sure. Please introspect the value of \alpha for us,

137?

“But where did 137 come in? Pauli became convinced that the number was so
fundamental that it ought to be deducible from a theory of elementary
particles. This quest took over his waking and sleeping life. Driven beyond
endurance, he sought the help of Jung…”

https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/looking-back-odd-couple

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by IDentity
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.

Sure. Please introspect the value of \alpha for us,

137?
"But where did 137 come in?

From experiment of course, to 12 significant digits.

Pauli became convinced that the number was so
fundamental that it ought to be deducible from a theory of elementary
particles.

Yes, but that is obsolete by now.
Thanks to string theory we know nowadays
that this is just another random number,
selected anthropically at the big Bang.
'Uggly theories are good!'

This quest took over his waking and sleeping life. Driven beyond
endurance, he sought the help of Jung…"
https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/looking-back-odd-couple

Who couldn't help either.
And now, almost a 100 years on,
we are still as clueless as Pauli was a century ago.
Asking some Buddhist idiot, or a Taoist idem,
or any other Eastern 'sage' like this IDentity <***@invalid.org>
will get us lots of fuzzy language, but not 137

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 16:14:06 +0200, the following appeared

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by IDentity
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.

Sure. Please introspect the value of \alpha for us,

137?
"But where did 137 come in?

From experiment of course, to 12 significant digits.

Pauli became convinced that the number was so
fundamental that it ought to be deducible from a theory of elementary
particles.

Yes, but that is obsolete by now.
Thanks to string theory we know nowadays
that this is just another random number,
selected anthropically at the big Bang.
'Uggly theories are good!'

This quest took over his waking and sleeping life. Driven beyond
endurance, he sought the help of Jung…"
https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/looking-back-odd-couple

Who couldn't help either.
And now, almost a 100 years on,
we are still as clueless as Pauli was a century ago.
Asking some Buddhist idiot, or a Taoist idem,
will get us lots of fuzzy language, but not 137

It certainly yields a fine structure, but it will never
allow us to reach the One True Answer (42, of course), or
receive a thank-you note for all the fish.

[erik simpson]

Post by IDentity
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.
"There is nothing that isn't objective; there is nothing that isn't
subjective. But it is impossible to start from the objective. Only
through subjective knowledge is it possible to reach objective
knowledge. This is the axis of TAO: when the subjective and the
objective are no longer opposed." - Chuang Tzu

Ommm..

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 16:04:48 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by IDentity
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.
"There is nothing that isn't objective; there is nothing that isn't
subjective. But it is impossible to start from the objective. Only
through subjective knowledge is it possible to reach objective
knowledge. This is the axis of TAO: when the subjective and the
objective are no longer opposed." - Chuang Tzu

Ommm..

I especially like "External reality is a dream dreamed by
the mind". Apparently the universe didn't exist prior to the
first mind. Whatever that might have been.

"Reality is whatever we believe it to be."
Sure, Sparky.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 16:04:48 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by IDentity
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.
"There is nothing that isn't objective; there is nothing that isn't
subjective. But it is impossible to start from the objective. Only
through subjective knowledge is it possible to reach objective
knowledge. This is the axis of TAO: when the subjective and the
objective are no longer opposed." - Chuang Tzu

Ommm..

I especially like "External reality is a dream dreamed by
the mind". Apparently the universe didn't exist prior to the
first mind. Whatever that might have been.

You might like the 'Austin interpretation' of quantum mechanics,
by John Wheeler.
It takes all that 'conciousness of the observer'
nonsense to its logical conclusion.
It posits that the whole past doesn't exist,
except as potential possibilities.
Those T. rexes for example existed only as quantum superpositions,
together with infinitely many other logicaly possible creatures.
Then the first mind came along, observed something, a dead cat perhaps,
and all those billion years of quantum superposition
crashed down into the one world we happen to know.

Jan

Post by Bob Casanova
"Reality is whatever we believe it to be."
Sure, Sparky.

[erik simpson]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 16:04:48 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by IDentity
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.
"There is nothing that isn't objective; there is nothing that isn't
subjective. But it is impossible to start from the objective. Only
through subjective knowledge is it possible to reach objective
knowledge. This is the axis of TAO: when the subjective and the
objective are no longer opposed." - Chuang Tzu

Ommm..

I especially like "External reality is a dream dreamed by
the mind". Apparently the universe didn't exist prior to the
first mind. Whatever that might have been.

You might like the 'Austin interpretation' of quantum mechanics,
by John Wheeler.
It takes all that 'conciousness of the observer'
nonsense to its logical conclusion.
It posits that the whole past doesn't exist,
except as potential possibilities.
Those T. rexes for example existed only as quantum superpositions,
together with infinitely many other logicaly possible creatures.
Then the first mind came along, observed something, a dead cat perhaps,
and all those billion years of quantum superposition
crashed down into the one world we happen to know.
Jan

Post by Bob Casanova
"Reality is whatever we believe it to be."
Sure, Sparky.

I love it! This is what happens when we impose quantum theory on
macroscopic objects.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:58:06 +0200, the following appeared

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 16:04:48 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson

Post by erik simpson

Post by IDentity
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
that it would have been noted earlier than that.
The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
on all he looks at."
Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
whether he arrived at this under his own steam.

The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
yourself - your mind.
Like Jung said: "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
awakens."
External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
must realize that you are the dreamer.
Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
scientific his ideas from here. He didn't get far enough in his
understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
principle of the GUT science is still looking for.
"There is nothing that isn't objective; there is nothing that isn't
subjective. But it is impossible to start from the objective. Only
through subjective knowledge is it possible to reach objective
knowledge. This is the axis of TAO: when the subjective and the
objective are no longer opposed." - Chuang Tzu

Ommm..

I especially like "External reality is a dream dreamed by
the mind". Apparently the universe didn't exist prior to the
first mind. Whatever that might have been.

You might like the 'Austin interpretation' of quantum mechanics,
by John Wheeler.
It takes all that 'conciousness of the observer'
nonsense to its logical conclusion.

I'd say "illogical", maybe even "insane", but never mind.
;-)

Post by J. J. Lodder
It posits that the whole past doesn't exist,
except as potential possibilities.
Those T. rexes for example existed only as quantum superpositions,
together with infinitely many other logicaly possible creatures.
Then the first mind came along, observed something, a dead cat perhaps,
and all those billion years of quantum superposition
crashed down into the one world we happen to know.

Sounds like he may have been an early (and still continuing)
proponent of a certain class of psychedelic substances.

Good poster child for "Don't leave your mind so open that
your brain falls out", though...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Bob Casanova
"Reality is whatever we believe it to be."
Sure, Sparky.