Re: Have you ever wondered.....
- From: "AllYou!" <idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 16:39:34 -0400
"Kees Roos" <croos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:427670ec$0$169$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "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.
It has to do with your definition of observation. You once claimed that time was as
physical as space. Well, if something is physical, it's observable. Yet that conflicts
with your current position that something can't be observable if it requires the
comparison of two different states.
> 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.
On 11/29/04 we had this exchange:
Me: But the other coordinate, time, is not physical,
You: But it is, just as physical as space.
Me: [Time] is not observable,
You: But it is, just as observable as space.
You also said the following, which is inconsistent with what you now say about how
observation can only happen WRT to a single state:
"I observe physical traits of time all the time. Any duration of any process is a time
interval. "
How can you observe a whole process when a process, by definition, is the comparison of
many states, just like a real life movie? And there were many other such statements from
you.
Please don't send me on these wild goose chases anymore.
> 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.
Not at all true. You said it was just as physical, and went on and on about observing
processes just like a movie.
> I also recall that I have stated that I fully agree with
> you that time is inferred from observations of the
> progression of processes.)
Right. Time cannot be observed, and so it's not physical.
>
> > 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.
No, you broadened the discussion back to the more general. Make up your mind. You've
asserted that an observation can't include the comparison of two states of the same
object, and my response shows that this is not true.
> 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.
You're purposefully missign the point. Do you or do you not agree that the notion of
observation can include the comparison of two observations? Yes or no?
>
> > The reception of sensory
> > inputs is non-intellectual.
> >
> The sensory input from the eyes to the brain is pictures.
No, it's a stream of impulses.
> Pictures depict states. They don't depict motion.
> So, the sensory input to the brain is states, not motion.
That's correct. But to then do something with those impulses requires an intellectual,
process. This process completes the act of observation. Therefore, observation includes
intellectual processes. Therefore, the intellectual process of comparing of two states is
also an observation. Therefore, motion can be observed, and therefore, is not inferred.
>
> > 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.
Right. Motion is observed.
>
> > 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)
Yes.
> And when you feel that an object is hot, that is
> not an observation?(It is a sensory input, but not match
> with memory)
Sure it does. You get the input, but then you've got to match that with everything else
you've learned in order to find the match with what you've conceptualized as heat. You
learned what heat was from experiencing it.
> What about phenomena for which we have no sensory
> organ at all (magnetism, em-radiation at invisible
> frequencies)? Cannot we observe them at all?
Observations can be direct, or indirect. Anything which is capable of affecting that
which is observable is also observable.
>
> 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.
Maybe the confusion is yours.
> This might give you the impression that your observation of the
> progression of a process is a direct observation.
The comparison of different states is the observation. Maybe you're confused in that you
believe that the reception of a sensory input is the observation and that no intellectual
process is required. It sure seems that this is your problem.
> Nevertheless, the observation of motion and indeed of any
> ongoing process is inferred from comparisons of successively
> observed different states.
No, the comparison of the different states is included in the observation process. Only
an intellect can observe. Inanimate objects are simply affected, they don't observe.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Have you ever wondered.....
- From: Kees Roos
- Re: Have you ever wondered.....
- From: AllYou!
- Re: Have you ever wondered.....
- References:
- Re: Have you ever wondered.....
- From: Kees Roos
- Re: Have you ever wondered.....
- From: AllYou!
- Re: Have you ever wondered.....
- From: Kees Roos
- Re: Have you ever wondered.....
- Prev by Date: Space-time (vs. "space-space") visualization by embedding in 3-D space
- Next by Date: Re: Have you ever wondered.....
- Previous by thread: Re: Have you ever wondered.....
- Next by thread: Re: Have you ever wondered.....
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
