Re: Have you ever wondered.....

"AllYou!" <idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
news:yemdnQukXsccouvfRVn-vQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Kees Roos" <croos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:42751c7f$0$161$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "AllYou!" <idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
>> news:jKWdnUdart2jVO3fRVn-qA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> [snip]
>> > Motion is observed. The speed of an object is directly observable, and
>> > it's change in
>> > position is directly observable.
>> >
>> Our defintions of 'observe' must differ, because according to
>> my definition this is not so.
>> So, let's find out where we differ:
>> In my vocabulary 'observe' as practised in physics means
>> 'collect data on phenomena'.
>>
>> When an object changes its position, it takes at least
>> two observations of positions to detect it.
>> The diagnosis whether these observed positions differ
>> and the ensuing conclusion that the object moved or not
>> is a procedure which is carried out on the collected data,
>> after the observations, and which itself is not an
>> observation.
>> So, the positions are observed, the detection of change
>> (if any) is the result of the comparison procedure.
>>
>> Please indicate where I go wrong.
>>
>> Further, could you indicate what 'direct' and 'indirect'
>> observations are?
>
> Do you recall when you stated that time was as physical as space? Well
> how can time be
> physical if your very notion of time relies upon memory? Obviously,
> you've changed
> positions.
>
I don't know how you think this relates to what I
say and ask in the above. In all of my text the very
words 'time' and 'space' are absent.
My text is about observation and detection.
Both those word are absent in your reaction.
(Could you refer me to where I say what you
state I said? I don't recall it and I think you
are wrong. Please quote me.
I recall having said that 'space' is just as *abstract*
as 'time'. The concept 'physical' as you use it is
not clear to me, so I cannot state anything about it.
I also recall that I have stated that I fully agree with
you that time is inferred from observations of the
progression of processes.)

> Also, since when does a comparative procedure negate observation?
> Measurement is a
> comparative procedure, and it's the quintessential observation.
>
Right now we discuss detection of motion.
That comprises of two measurements (observations) of
*positions*, not of *motion*, and after these observations
(measurements) we use the results (positions) to detect
the presence of motion (change of position).
We observe positions, and afterwards infer motion
from the results.

> The reception of sensory
> inputs is non-intellectual.
>
The sensory input from the eyes to the brain is pictures.
Pictures depict states. They don't depict motion.
So, the sensory input to the brain is states, not motion.

> Everything else about observation requires the use of
> intellect at some level.
>
After different pictures are available to the brain,
they can be compared and motion detected if
present.

> Matching one sensory input with your memory of others is how you
> make any observation.
>
So, when you measure the position of an object, that is
not an observation? (It is a sensory input, but not match
with memory)
And when you feel that an object is hot, that is
not an observation?(It is a sensory input, but not match
with memory)
What about phenomena for which we have no sensory
organ at all (magnetism, em-radiation at invisible
frequencies)? Cannot we observe them at all?

Maybe you are confused by the fact that in the human brain we
have a realtime observation process, which continuously
compares observed states and infers motion on a realtime basis.
This might give you the impression that your observation of the
progression of a process is a direct observation.
Nevertheless, the observation of motion and indeed of any
ongoing process is inferred from comparisons of successively
observed different states.
If you want to read on this subject I can recommend:
-Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis,
Simon & Schuster, 1994, ISBN 0-671-71158-X
-Daniel. C. Dennett, Consciousness Explained, 1993,
I have a Dutch translation, so cannot give ISBN number
of the original English edition.
-Steven Pinker, How the mind works, 1997
Also Dutch translation, so no ISBN of English edition.


In my vocabulary 'observe' as practised in physics means
'collect data on phenomena'.

When an object changes its position, it takes at least
two observations of positions to detect it.
The diagnosis whether these observed positions differ
and the ensuing conclusion that the object moved or not
is a procedure which is carried out on the collected data,
after the observations, and which itself is not an
observation.
So, the positions are observed, the detection of change
(if any) is the result of the comparison procedure.

Please indicate where I go wrong.

Further, could you indicate what 'direct' and 'indirect'
observations are?

--
Regards, Kees Roos


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... >>> is the result of the comparison procedure. ... > My text is about observation and detection. ... > the presence of motion. ... > The sensory input from the eyes to the brain is pictures. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... >> 1) The assertion around which this debate centers is that motion should ... > Direct observation is only possible for states, ... you're taking the issue of time and inferring it at an entirely different level. ... > physicality of time must originate in different understandings ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... > 1) The assertion around which this debate centers is that motion should ... > say that the tube measures the distance which the white marble moved. ... Direct observation is only possible for states, ... inferring, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... > 1) The assertion around which this debate centers is that motion should ... >>> say that the tube measures the distance which the white marble moved. ... >> Direct observation is only possible for states, ... >> inferring, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... > 1) The assertion around which this debate centers is that motion should ... In your experiment you compare two observed states, and infer ... Direct observation is only possible for states, ... inferring, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)