Questions about light..

Information seems to be one of those properties that stubbornly defies discrete and exact location in the world. While light is said to "carry information" it doesn't appear to do this without the presence of an interpreting mind. Like color, it is both derived from and projected onto light as the medium that manifests it. Information is therefore a hybrid between physical and mental phenomena. A binding of objective facticity with subjective experience. We appear to experience information as an objective property in the very act of deciphering it.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Information seems to be one of those properties that stubbornly defies discrete and exact location in the world. While light is said to "carry information" it doesn't appear to do this without the presence of an interpreting mind. Like color, it is both derived from and projected onto light as the medium that manifests it. Information is therefore a hybrid between physical and mental phenomena. A binding of objective facticity with subjective experience. We appear to experience information as an objective property in the very act of deciphering it.
Click to expand...
I suppose so. But there’s nothing special about light in this regard, of course. Almost any physical observation can convey information.
 
Magical Realist said:
Information seems to be one of those properties that stubbornly defies discrete and exact location in the world. While light is said to "carry information" it doesn't appear to do this without the presence of an interpreting mind.
Click to expand...
Would you agree that theories, in physics, represent what humans have interpreted about their observations?
 
Guestfornow said:
Would you agree that theories, in physics, represent what humans have interpreted about their observations?
Click to expand...
Sure.

More precisely, theories are models that can be used to make predictions about what we should expect to observe.

The more accurately they predict it, the better the model, the more robust the theory.
 
DaveC426913 said:
More precisely, theories are models that can be used to make predictions about what we should expect to observe.

The more accurately they predict it, the better the model, the more robust the theory.
Click to expand...
How about completeness? Can any theory be said to be a complete model, or isn't that possible?

I'm trying to imply there, that no theory can be a complete description of the physical world, it is necessarily always approximate or incomplete, for eminently logical reasons.
But, you know, logic is just logic. Maybe the universe has some completely not-logical stuff we don't know anything about, yet.

Theories are interpreted observations; what then is an observation of an observation?
 
Last edited:
What I'm trying to understand is why I can observe myself observing--I know when I'm observing and I know about the process of observation.
Click to expand...

We have an introspective grasp on our own mental processes. So we can know when we are observing. But I'm not sure we can be sure when someone else is observing. What does their act of observing objectively look like? A bunch of synapses firing off in their brain? How can we be sure it is an observation? We'd have to ask the person themselves to describe what they are observing and compare it with our observation of the same thing. But it isn't exactly "observing" their act of observing.
 
Last edited:
Guestfornow said:
How about completeness? Can any theory be said to be a complete model, or isn't that possible?

I'm trying to imply there, that no theory can be a complete description of the physical world, it is necessarily always approximate or incomplete, for eminently logical reasons.
But, you know, logic is just logic. Maybe the universe has some completely not-logical stuff we don't know anything about, yet.

Theories are interpreted observations; what then is an observation of an observation?
Click to expand...
In science the door is always open for new observations that may in principle show that a model is defective or incomplete. It is sometimes said that in science all “truth” is provisional. But you can have a theory that seems to account for all relevant observations at a given point in history, certainly. That was true of Newtonian mechanics for a couple of hundred years.
 
Magical Realist said:
Ok then...moving on.
Click to expand...
Light is part of the electro magnetic spectrum, the parts you can see between 400-700nm.
You cannot see micro waves, IR, UV or radio waves but they are part of the same spectrum.
If you look into the nature of light, it's properties you will get profound insights regarding the universe.
Start at the beginning is my advice, take off from your high school training or college and take it from there.
If you have gaps fill them. Wiki is a decent source.
 
Magical Realist said:
We have an introspective grasp on our own mental processes. So we can know when we are observing. But I'm not sure we can be sure when someone else is observing. What does their act of observing objectively look like? A bunch of synapses firing off in their brain? How can we be sure it is an observation? We'd have to ask the person themselves to describe what they are observing and compare it with our observation of the same thing. But it isn't exactly "observing" their act of observing.
Click to expand...
We can be sure. We can use a radiometer or photospectrometer to measure a light source or reflectance respectively.
I can store that data as a file and use it with colleagues.
A value at 420 nm is a value, a measurement.
 
Guestfornow said:
How about completeness? Can any theory be said to be a complete model, or isn't that possible?

I'm trying to imply there, that no theory can be a complete description of the physical world, it is necessarily always approximate or incomplete, for eminently logical reasons.
But, you know, logic is just logic. Maybe the universe has some completely not-logical stuff we don't know anything about, yet.

Theories are interpreted observations; what then is an observation of an observation?
Click to expand...
Science is not philosophy, Science is empirical.
Mathematics is not.
Scientific theory builds on empirical evidence, it should explain it.
The Theory of Evolution explains speciation beautifully even though not every detail is known.
Atomic theory and quantum mechanics explain how the micro world work.
GR how large bodies and space time work.
Gaps though.
Science is working on those gaps.
 
Isn't information a combination of encoder, decoder, and message/messenger? It seems most people get caught up in the message/messenger. But isn't that typically just a mindless material or signal?

Does an encoder need to have a brain? When looking at a rock in the sun, doesn't the rock encoded the light in such a way, color and shapes, that a brain can decode it into the thoughts of what the rock's materials and shapes are?

Isn't a book just a message/messenger? Light is both a message and messenger, isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top