I confess to the usual level of exasperation. Yet again the great
culturally maintained mental block subverts real progress. And, yet
again, the participant doesn;t even know they are doing it. Garrett
says ....
/"The key is that observers are just a particular type of information,
as is everything else. That is, we assume that the Physical Church
Turing Thesis (PCTT) ..blah blah blah...."
/
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
The author has somehow remained completely uninformed by the real
message in the consciousness material cited in the article.
*Observers are NOT just a particular type of information!!!!*
The word information _was defined by an observer_, a human, USING
observation. Like every other word it's just a metaphoric description of
as thing, with meaning to a human. No matter what logical steps one
proceeds to enact from this juncture, you are not describing anything
that can be used to build or explain an observer. You are merely
describing what an observer will see.
What does it take to get something so simple across to physics?
I'll have yet another go at it.
Consider a SET_X = {BALL1, BALL2, BALL3, BALL4}
This is a traditional 3-rd person (3P) view of the set created by a
scientific act of OBSERVATION of the set of balls.
BALL SET SCIENCE then proceeds to construct very clever mathematical
descriptions of set member behaviour.
BUT
If you are the observer = BALL1, INSIDE SET X, the very act of
observation results from the 1ST PERSON (1-P) relationship between [you,
observer = BALL 1 ] and [the rest of the set, from within SET_X]. This
description is not the same as the above description of SET_X!!!! Can't
anyone see that ?? The ability to observe anything arises from that
circumstance, not from the 3P-circumstance constructed by having observed.
Science has not even begun to characterise SET_X in the 1P way.
=================
Every single attempt so far in science has the following generic form.....
I am human scientist FRED. How we humans do observation is a real
mystery. I like mysteries. And I am really good at maths. I will do the
very clever maths of observation. Now where do I begin.......ASSUMING
OBSERVATION ....... blah blah blah.....
Then off we go into the weeds, YET AGAIN.
FRED just doesn't get the difference between 1-P and 3-P. It's a
systemic blindness.
I'll just crawl off and fume for a while. I'll be OK soon enough! :-)
Colin Hales
<if you can't formulaically predict/build an observer with what you
produced, you haven't explained observation and you don't really
understand it>
ronaldheld wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2198v1.pdf
Any comments?
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
