Defining observation

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Defining observation

I.e. Defining what observation is
+
What is; ‘defining an observation’?

If our conscious experience is a property of the physical universe, the only thing i can think of which is remotely like that, would be observation. If we consider that all quantum particles have the property ‘observation’, we could go on to see that our minds are a mass of those calibrated and attuned through the instruments of the brain.

Perception would be a mass of ‘observations’ ‘focused’ upon a given thing or collection of things.

So what does ‘observation’ include; one observing object ‘knows’ another observing object and interacts with it according to its nature. This is possibly because in the quantum ocean all particles can be each other, in the sense that if you mix them enough you get a unified sea of non-particles which can merge and duplicate themselves endlessly. In that sea then, the qualities of all quantum positions/particles and potential particles, are known informationally to the sea, such that it can redraw the universe as if like a refresh rate on your tv or monitor.

This would mean that information is already known, rather than for example; that brain knows something. This would be derivative informations at the base level rather than macroscopic info we ‘know’. The brain knows the world primarily at this level, and adjusts to variations in the macroscopic world via its instrumentation.

‘focus’ is perhaps a centralised gathering of observations forming the perception, all of which are informed at base.

All of this doesn’t mean that all quantum particles are conscious or even ‘aware’. As i see it awareness would occur when you have a third party observer which is aware ~ observing its own mass of observations in a single/unified action. …?

It probably does mean that the quantum ocean of pre-particles in a given universe and ultimately of the entire multiverse, is conscious? This for the very same reason that a gathering of observations in a mass = consciousness in us! E.g. perception, focus and instrument utility are consciousness as a gathering of all such things as the one thing that they collectively are.

However, we humans have a third party observer, which is primarily what gives us our physical subjectivity. The quantum sea may have no means to centralise that? And to take it to the level of perspective which manifests the third party observer.

Alternately, duplicate quantum particles, universes and versions of all contained therein [which there must be] e.g. Us, requires a medium and third party to any duplicates. [It may be this by which we inherit the third party perspective which makes us individuals, even though that would occur by our centralising nature anyway.] so the ontological principle here is; where there are two, there would always be a third body they dwell in.

Equally, for there to be e.g. Two ‘you’s’, there must be a third universal ‘body’ or you by which those two things are variants of the one thing, Otherwise you would have two distinct things/you’s and not two or more variants of the same ‘body’. This supplies us with the addition of universal bodies to wit all of the other bodies are contained [metaphysically].

So where would those universal bodies dwell? Would they be omniscient in terms of base informations [omni in the sense of an universal set].

Now we can take that metaphysical ‘place’ [where they dwell] and ask the same questions again. The universal bodies would belong again to a singular/unified ‘body’ via the same metaphysical principles as everything in the universe/multiverse.

We are here talking about metaphysical bodies, which could mean that universal bodies have no ‘body’ et al.
_

2

Somewhat related to a comment you made… I was in the space-time thread and noted that you can have the entire reality be 2 dimensional, but there’s no awareness without an observer. This is very easy to explain… we all know those optical illusions where the picture looks like it’s moving, but they are just stationary drawings on a 2D surface, and we also know those optical illusions where you can see 3D images from dot matrixes or stacked pictures… if you put an optical illusion for motion inside a 3D optical illusion (from 2D) you have 3D motion from a 2D surface… but without the third part, the observer… there is no awareness.

3

Are they sure you can have a 2D reality?

Optical illusions occur where there is a limit to what our instrumentation can deal with, or show how those instruments put an image of a thing or the world together. For me that doesn’t tell us anything at all about the universe or reality in general, except that we are subjectively perceiving entities, in a perspective based world.

perspective is a function of observation.

If you had a two dimensional universe, what would be either side of it? It seems to me that the universe expanded into 3D space [or made it] because there wasn’t anything else to stop it. A principle would be; if you begin from a point in an infinite space, you would expand in all directions, ergo pan dimensionally rather than 1D > 2D > 3D etc.

edit; Hmm we could say that reality is drawn or composed e.g. By our minds for us to see it how we need to, but that everything else in existence is also doing that. The world is composing itself the same as we are ~ because it is the same! That’s how we can see it and communicate with it, because we have the same fundamental aspects of here ‘observation’, as everything else in the universe down to the tiniest quantum particle.

_

4

Ahh… but now you’re talking about monoary, not binary… I’ve spent most my life trying to think about base 1, and to be perfectly honest, not much has come up. It can only be calculated by the numerical placeholders, 1 zero equals zero, two zeroes equals 1 etc… it’s possible.

5

Have you considered that integers themselves are an upper layer of things, rather than base? That our visual perception can tell us more than numbers. QM doesn’t work by numbers, only its outer expressions do. Reality itself is too ‘fluid’ for numbers ~ and that is why we always get inconsistencies with number patterns and how they marry to e.g. Music and light/colour.

6

Perhaps. I think reality operates under a paradox actually, although when looked at it can be seen linearly. All paradoxes have the form “Something is necessarily something other than what it necessarily is”

What this does is create a quantum state, where the particle is what it is and isn’t what it is (something else), and then you have a situation where they observe each other as being the same thing.

7

Hmm, i’d say that paradoxes occur where our understanding of the subtle nature of a things is confused. For example, when we try to understand QM we do it with tools for understanding the macroscopic/physical world, when the fact is that reality is not physical and infinity is its base. You don’t really get one particle in two or more places at once, what you really have is a fluidity that can be and is all particles in all universes, and is the third party between any two given particles [correlated by information].
The paradox is resolved when we consider that you don’t really have ‘part’icles or quanta [amounts/values], you have something which is scale-less formless and doesn’t itself have ‘amounts’. Consider how gravity in general relativity doesn’t exist except that it is comparative; when you compare one body against another then gravity exists, otherwise it doesn’t. Its the same with ‘observation’~ we perceive particles as observing one another, but they do that under the given informational conditions. That’s not to say that they don’t observe and that gravity doesn’t exist [or energy itself], it means that at base there is something else connecting everything and >then< an observation or forces exist. in other words, particles exist only at the secondary level, they are not self reliant/manifesting.

If an observation only occurs under given conditions [as it does everywhere in the universe], then it is not a thing in and of itself, nothing is.

Name any paradox and i’ll show you why its duality is false. hopefully :slight_smile:

_