WHO is GOD in terms of SCIENCE ?

If we see everything in terms of existence ; mass exists , energy exists , space exists and also observer exists .


Consider every existence as an entity .


So mass , energy , space , observer and every distinct existence is an entity .


If we analyse all these entities ; mainly two types of entities can be found .


These are 1) inert entity and 2) non-inert entity .


Inert entity can not change on its own . Example : mass , energy , space etc .


Non-inert entity can change on its own . Example : an observer .



In terms of this "entity-analysis" ; an action is interaction between two entities .


An interaction between two inert entities is Physics .


An interaction between inert entity and non-inert entity is also possible . Example : any action of an observer .


An observer has some-potent , some-scient , some-presence .


If some-potent , some-scient, some-presence is possible ; omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresence is also possible .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You’re still skirting the issue. Name your poison. Is it some type of vedanta woo?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trooper,

This is an old bit of well established woo and it goes like this. The affected person hears some blurb about observation causing wavefunction collapse. In their mind, an observer is a conscious, sapient, life form only. This delusion, combined with the notion that the macro universe appears to always be collapsed, leads them to believing the universe is constantly being observed by some omnipresent life form... and naturally they think this is some never before thought of proof of 'God'.

The reality (as you know) is that an observer is any system that can accept information. Whether or not that system is alive, conscious, or sapient is utterly irrelevant. You can point it out a million times (as has been done in this thread); however, it will either get ignored or met with some subjective question like Hansda's active/passive bit.

Until a person like this decides to accept the reality of what an observer actually is, there is nothing you can do for thier understanding. You can even go so far as to point out the obvious contradiction that an omnipresent observer would cause all wavefunctions to collapse and we would never be able to detect superposition, yet we do and can. It won't make any difference.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let's test this idea... Don't observe something and then get back with us and let us know the results of your non-observation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ya, it’s sort of like when they say that if the universe had been constructed differently then I wouldn’t even be here. Well, duh! :bugeye:

Exploiting QM…nothing new.

See ya later...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There is no difference between the 'observer of Vedanta' and the 'observer of Physics' .

 

@hansda --

We covered this observer crap already.

 

The point which I am trying to highlight is that , some interaction can happen between an observer and mass or energy .

 

What is your definition of an 'observer' ?

 

Any particle that interacts with another particle. That's sort of what an observer in quantum physics is. As I've already explained, our observations affect the outcome of an experiment because on that scale and energy level, anything we might do to gain information is going to have a direct affect on what we're observing. Observations at the quantum level are nothing like watching a pride of lions through a telescope, or a satellite feed. Consciousness has nothing to do with it, the same thing happens when particles collide with each other in nature.

 

I am asking about the general definition of observer in Physics . You are only pointing out the QM phenomena . Einstein also used the term observer to explain his Theory of Relativity .

So, What is the general definition of the term 'observer' in Physics ?

 

@hansda --

Since we're discussing quantum phenomena the definition to use would be that of quantum physics.

In relativity, which has nothing to do with quantum physics, an observer is completely different. So which type of phenomena are you trying to bring in here, quantum or relativity? Because the answer will determine which definition we should use.

 

QM , SR are all part of Physics . I want observer's definition for Physics/Science .

 

Arioch and Hansda: Go though each of your last five posts and explain how they address the questions posed in the opening post of this thread.
If you cannot show that this topic is of philosophical interest and that your posts have philosophical content, I will request that the two of you be banned from this sub-forum.

 

Well then you're going to get multiple definitions for use in multiple situations. As an example(which I've already mentioned), the definition of what an observer is in quantum physics is necessarily different from the definition used in relativity due to the different circumstances between the two.

 

The 'observer in Philosophy' and the 'observer in Physics' ; Is there any difference ?

 

So, there is no standard definition of 'observer' in Physics . In that case , why we should not use the Philosophical definition of 'observer' in Physics/Science also .

 

This exemplifies, clearly, your refusal to address questions as posed to you. I will report this. General philosophy does not mean platforming religious neurosis, positive nor negative. Philosophy is, at least, the supporting of positions, held, by reasoned argument.

 

The 'observer' is common in Philosophy and Physics . I was just trying to clarify this point .

 

An observer is any system that can accept information. It can be a slice of cheese, a person, a rock, a dog, a carbon nontube, an atom, an egg, etc.