Section 36 (last updated 2.04.2021)
(Add to lightcone decoherence)
The observer problem
Alan watts frames the problem- What is behind your eyes?
The observer effect opens up fundamental questions about quantum mechanics. It is proven that the “observation” cannot be made without affecting the phenomena, that is, without changing the system, it still remains unclear as to why this is the case? Heisenberg argued that the observer effect at the quantum level is a physical “explanation” of quantum uncertainty.[7] The uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a concept about the observational success of current empirical technology.[9]
The effect of the observer postulates uncertainty because the measurement does not mean only process in which a physicist-observer partakes in the experiment. The “observer” is any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any person observer. Measurement as empirically assigned is based on the capacity for the physical object to be quantitively determined. The action of measuring something is ingrained in the very composition of objects. In terms of quantum mechanics the change brought about by the observer is change not of some preexisting system but rather the change that generates the system itself. The reason why the observer cannot be made without affecting the phenomena, such that, without changing the system is because the conception is itself the determining of the objects quantity.
The observer understood as generative force is precursor for the uncertainty principle.
These problems are not only mere precautions that must be taken before embarking into the concept, they say that the perception of the observer conforms to something implicit in the mind that actually causes what is being conceived.
Yet the observer so far as being identical with the phenomenon suggests no other explanation than that defined as life. (Put here the Greeks say life as universal principle) In the concept of life we find that the enegeria, activity is indistinguishable from the physical composition. Quantum decoherence occurs when a system is not perfectly isolated but in contact with its surrounding. The coherence time is the lifespan of quantum states. Interestingly the lifespan of quantum state is determined by how long it endures environmental disruptions. It does not have any particular lifespan independent from the events of the situation but rather it is the very span of the situation itself. “Decoherence” at the quantum level is non individuation suggesting that any event is negation of some already negative principle.
The quantum state is that which the environment occurs to and happens for. We must explain how fundamental is the observer effect in characterizing quantum states where the interactions of physical objects are parts of the causal activity.
How materialism view the observer
The scientific materialism model of the observer effect is describable in the following manner:
The observer effect is explained by comparing light as a source of perception to see things at the macroscopic level, as opposed to the photons of light required to perceive microscopic operations. There is physical difference between light at the macroscopic scale versus the subatomic microscopic photons. The light used to see things by ordinary everyday standard does not effect the physical composition of the perceived objects because the photons of light required for perception are so small they do not have the mass necessary to alter the motion of macroscopic structures which are comparatively massive. The size of subatomic forms on the other hand are so minute they theoretically exhibit the same mass as the photon particles required to perceive them. The very photons required for perceiving microscopic forms interfere with the subatomic structures such that to displace the atoms away from the perception. Meaning that every time the effort is made to perceive something, the photons from the perception move the object away from sight. This attempt at a purely physical description as to why the very act of measurement somehow makes it impossible to measure is based on few ungrounded presumptions.
It is first assumed that there is no connection between the microscopic and macroscopic realm because the laws of physics are so different they do not operate in the same way. This presupposition is used to suggest at the microscopic scale the photons from the conception physically changes the atomic structure, but while at the macroscopic level the light of the conception does not change the object. This is an idiomatic but an ungrounded comparison not only because of the obvious fact that photons of microscopic scale constitute the same element of light used for perception at the macroscopic level, but moreover the perception whether enhanced to be able to see microscopic or macroscopic is still the same faculty of sensation.
At the microscopic scale perception directly or indirectly has the power to physically alter elementary composition, we have to ask at the macroscopic scale what power of conceiving has the capacity to change events? Our hypothesis is to adopt thought as the power that brings certainty for objects which are perceived by sensation indeterminately. The mistake that the purely material description of the observer effect hopes to avoid is the equally mistaken assumption that the mere perception somehow brings into manifestation the objects coming into being,I.e. if no one looks the object does not exists. Aside from reducing mind to the mere faculty of perception, things are not granted the faculty of self-existence, the power for things to be their own conceiver (self conception is other, can only conceive oneself as another object)
The disconnect between the conception as integral to the physical composition of the object, as opposed to the physical composition of the object independent of its conception, should not disway the essetinal principle of reason as cause of unknown effects in the universe. The notion that even unknown effects or unexplained phenomena have rational basis or can be rationally explained, assumes a conceiving element behind the rational design, perhaps the most unknown effect of reason is the function of consciousness. Consciousness is evidently meant to reveal the unknown, but there is difficultly in seeing how consciousness is perhaps an active role for positing something to be unknown.
the very mental capabilities used to frame this mechanical account is said to be a factor purely receptive to the mechanics of the operation having no active role within it. The fact of a disturbance in the observation, even if caused by factors having nothing to do with the observation, is initially discovered by the act of observation.
why would it trick itself, to make room for knowledge.
In physics “effect” means “cause motion to”. The concept of motion in general is not limited to locomotion or spatio-temporal extension characterized by Newton’s second law of motion, which declares the acceleration of an object is dependent on the net force acting upon the mass of the object. This formulation of motion deals with the effect of objects in physical contact with each other through force or gravity and there are knowable effects that measure when change occur, for example momentum is the motion derived when one object utilizes the motion of another to gain acceleration, i.e, the impetus gained by moving object. Einstein’s special theory of relativity broadens motion to the standard of light. Light brides motion and matted Motion is no longer abstract feature of all physical objects, that all physical object are in motion, but what it means for something to be physical is defined the bare minimum substrate known as light. Light is the substrate of motion and motion is the form of light. (add explanation of light here).
Any causal conception cannot surpass faster than the speed of light and backwards in time, principle of irreversibility. Motion is Physical Causality means A) cause can not have an effect outside its light cone, and B) within the light cone events are irreversible. The first condition means that an activity cannot act beyond its material form without that matter being carried out with the activity. The second condition is matter always conforms to the change of the activity, anything otherwise is part of the change (add law of irreversibility here). But what about the motion resulting in no measurable properties insinuated by the observer effect? Our Newtonian understanding exhibit motion as always providing some measurable effect, for example the momentum and mass of the bowling ball knocks down the pins changing their position.
Newtonian motion does not explain transformations of motion like the change from one quality to another, as for example heat at certain temperature changes the molecular composition of chemicals into other chemicals. Einstein’s concept of motion does take into account these changes of motion but inconclusively (explain Einstein’s Brownian motion)
The observer effect shows motion produces non-measurable effects. Even in the purely materialistic account, the fact that atoms are somehow altered by photons so as to be imperceptible, leaves us with the conclusion that motion causes unknown effects following a causality. The idea that motion produces unknown effects contradict Newton’s third law that “the size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object”, formally stated “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”, this assumes motion is the physical interaction between objects leaving no room for their conception as part of the relation only because it is not perceptible part . Newton’s laws of motion does not include the conception as part of the objects motion. In the subatomic realm not every action causes an equal reaction. if the act of measurement causes the photon to cause the atom to change into an unknown effect, then this motion leads to an unequal reaction . The incapacity to measure resulting in unknown effect is unequal to the measurement of the object initiating this distortion .
The hypothesis of something unknown or unmeasurable is characterized by the principle of nothing, whose being is to be something unknown. The hypothesis that nothing constitutes the unknown involves A) the inductive fact that the conception is kind of motion in the unconventional sense which causes unknown effect, I.e, removing the phenomenon from the measurement; and B) the deductive fact is that the conception finds an unknown principle in every knowable effect. What is the difference between the conception discovering an unknown effect as opposed to causing it? Is the unknown principle a part of things in the universe that the observer stumbles upon or is it a part of the very mental capacities the observer uses to make conception which involves room for unknown factors?
This unknown principle is not any particular fact not known but is the very uncertainty that keeps the search for truth.
Whether the known effects cause unknown principle or the unknown principle is the cause of known effects, the relation of known facts are connected by their common shared principle of an unknown cause.
(The act of measurement affects the measurement. can relate to the idea that during perception there is photon received but also the eye throws out photon, there is an electromagnetic spectrum between the observer and the object. Radiation is spectrum conception, how far the conception of the same thing reaches to another (Find scientist who says the photon from eye to sun. The observer does not miss the particle but rather looks passed it, beyond it, into nothing, which is equal to the capacity for observation but nothing to observer itself. But this is only intermediary for passing into next dimension.
The observer effect abstracts the capacity for transitioning into another dimension. When we think of changing dimension we argue that there is some kind of alteration of physical properties. But alteration of physical properties to denote changing of dimension are differences of abstract mathematical relations such as size, mass, speed etc. We have no problem accepting mind is the power changing such principles in the realm of mathematical reasoning. When we calculate mathematical problems we take for granted that mind determines the function. Yet in the realm of empirical experience mind is accounted no role in determining the dimensions of nature even though the calculations and manipulation necessary for analysis is mentally carried out throughout, during, and after the examination of multifaceted analysis of subatomic or macroscopic dimensions.
The use of a microscope or telescope is usually said to enhance the sensible faculties to perceive smaller or larger objects of vast or minute distances. Sensation however is a purely analytical faculty meaning that it is receptive to whatever stimuli confronting it which does not explain the actual change of the phenomenon for perception. In other words sensation can do no more than receive the information of phenomena before it but in order for the actual nature of the phenomenon to be changed such that perception is confronted with new information requires an capacity to change the actual physical dimension in which the perception operates within. In order for a technology like the microscope or telescope, to provide new information for the sensible facilities, the actual physical dimension is changed which is done by alteration of mathematical quantities like size, distance etc.
The telescope and microscope as extension of reason actually change dimension of nature for experience, consciousness changes simultaneously with the change of the dimension. We assume for some reason that the individuality of the observer, in other words the totality of their identity like their name their looks, must remain intact in the new dimension in order to qualify for change in dimension. We confuse the continuity between dimensions as the identity of the individual making the conception rather then the power of conception itself with or without that particular identity because it is not the case that some people can look through a microscope while others can not, any particular identity whether it be scientist or a bum will see the same microscopic phenomenon, although the will understand it differently and perhaps without the scientists the bum will never have the chance to look through the utensil.
The phrase ‘The act of measurement affects the measurement’ interprets an unknown effect derived from a natural phenomenon as induced by the observational method, but the observation so far as being part of a general conception is not viewed as a natural component of the phenomena.
(Add to light cone)
The effect of the observer on the phenomenon constitutes two fold relation, the observer both causes unknown effect, and receives the effect as unknown cause.
Modern science begins from what empirical observations suggest is an inflow of information and the observer is the effect that distorts this flow by causing a loss of information from a system. In this way the observer constitutes restart to some given inflow of information. But this so called loss or distortion of information is really the mechanism of organizing and giving order to it because the coherence, the structure of objects from empirical observation is classically incomplete, wave-particle duality. The observer is restart apparatus of the system, the information the disorganization of the fact, decoherence, for deriving more information. The observer is the aspect of the relation that gives and receives the information, the end extremes of the relation that when observes itself conceives a position independent from the content of the phenomena, but isolate in this sense means that which the events of things happen to and for. Even our empirical methods confirms that the observer is apparatus for setting up the information, the hypothesis, and then confirming it, the fact. (Observer feed back loop, self excited circuit)
(Connect The observer effect as described exactly by what whitehead the measurement discloses its object, the conception becomes the limit disclosing anything that is being measured by it)
Joe rogan Neil Tyson- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a5JOC5PcCy4
If at the subatomic level the photon effects the atom the only thing that a photon can effect is a photon.and so at the very minimum level we only have the quality of photon as transmitter without any content to transmit. The question becomes what provides the content such that to be effected by photon?
In answering the misconception about the observer effect having nothing to do with consciousness of the mind, the observer is argued to effect the phenomena simply because there is interference of photons that physically alter the atoms of the object. The problem is that the photon is not single particle because Photon is a “quanta” of electromagnetic wavelengths. How can photon move atoms away from the observation if it exhibits less mass than any atom? Photon is massless element because it is a force carrier. In this way the photon alone cannot effect the atoms of something such that to displace it from observation, like one ball hitting another. (Add ancient atomist here). Even though photons have no mass they still exhibit momentum. For example light bouncing off surface exerts force so that the momentum of photon is potentially greater than momentum of a neutrino. The neutrino is the mass of the photons momentum. The mass of neutrinos are said to be smaller than any of the other known elements particularly because its variation the electron has no known dimension meaning that it is infinitely small. The neutrino is the state where the force of electron being is in constant motion, neutrinos is the neutral position, the stability, of the electron force in constant motion.
It is wimpy explanation to reduce the observer effect to mean the interaction of the photon changed the path of electron because this does not explain their actual relation as it makes one element the photon an absolute separate energy from electron, which so far as their continuity goes, there difference is a abstraction of change in the same energy. The attempt to make the consciousness of observer as unrelated to the alteration of physical change is the classic mind body dualisms fallacy. Problems of the analysis of the understanding falling short to synthesize after the separation. (Add to mind matter unity)
The argument that the macroscopic and microscopic are entirely separate because the laws of physics is not the same from one to the other is an inquiry of complicating their relation so as to annul possible continuity between them. This very difference in physics perhaps constitutes the continuity. (Add to image of universe and image of brain neurone)
A challenge to our notion of quantity is that the heaviest thing in the universe is a supermassive blackhole,so far as being unknown principle defines the notion of nothing, whereas the lightest thing is photon, defines the notion of being. Quantity is feature of nothing and quality of something. This means that when ever we have a quality its very existence in relation to nothing associates it with quantity which is object in relation to other qualities but relative to nothing. This is why the momentum of photon can be characterized by the neutrinos as having the smallest mass. The momentum relative to nothing gives it mass.
How is light bent by gravity if it has no mass?
Photons are pulled by gravity not because of their mass as they have none) but because gravity bends space-time and therefore light appears bent.
“Consciousness causes collapse”
Coherency vs decoherence orthodox Copenhagen interpretation.
The observer just by its very wording does not explain the notion of determination because makes the element of freedom in the system passive to the occurrences of it which is half true, the important half which explains determination concerns how this passive nature is the grounds for decision, choice, selection, or in other terms the determination, but determination of what? Goes back to why the observer is passive element in system assumes that the contents of determinations are somehow absolute and destined, the forms.
Observation for example is intermediary function of the mind, if there is continuity between mind and object, the relation being wave like spectrum and tunnel where information is transmitted, the intermediation of the relation is therefore the experience which is the duration of some principle which acts as the form the extreme of the intermediation. What we see , vision or hearing or any faculty etc. is the experience of something undifferentiated and connected as one form, mind, the object is the intermediation of the mind with itself. (add to consciousness as concentration of form in object) the observer as an object, faculty or organ of observation, vs observer as consciousness, form of reason. If the observer is organ it is object of some rational conception, if rational conception than the object is the experience of its form. The observer as organ disturbs information by limiting it to particular kind
(Add to definition of observer as not any person)
Science is the system of observer, science so far as being method of observation and deduction of knowledge constitutes the system of consciousness . Existence is itself a scientific system, science as human achievement is discovery of the structure of reality is not mere cultural product. Or that what we mean by something produced is identical with it as discovered.