Re: Non-homogenous theories of space and time

From: Mike Helland (mhelland_at_techmocracy.net)
Date: 06/10/04 

Date: 10 Jun 2004 07:14:12 -0700

mitchsperkins@yahoo.com (mitch perkins) wrote in message news:<64dddc3d.0406091227.3b97254b@posting.google.com>...
> mhelland@techmocracy.net (Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0406081339.4a28eaa1@posting.google.com>...

<snip>

> > of particles is what allows for the
> > strength of our bones, pumping and oxygenating of our blood, ect. and
> > that seems to be of use.
> >
> > But if you mean that the observations of the particles have no deep
> > meaning to our consciousness, you're right. Is that a problem?
>
> "So called" refers to the fact that I don't think particles
> "observe" in any sense meaningful to humans. This is what I incredibly
> obviously meant.**

Right. So, is that a problem? I don't see how. Are you a solipsist by
any chance?

Keep in mind that if you think this is a problem then the claim can be
made that your observations and emotions are meaningless to me because
I do not experience them directly either. This is the problem from
which elusiveness of consciousness arises.

Despite that problem physics continues on avoiding solipsism whenever
it is invoked to discredit otherwise credible claims.

<snip>

> > What if the person has brain damage or other severe mental
> > impairments?
>
> I bite my tongue.
>
> > Why doesn't a chimpanzee viewing a microsope count?
>
> Because he doesn't know the numbers? ~:?)
>
> > Why are humans so special?
>
> Not "special"; relevant. Physics is an arena of human inquiry. Thus
> only the observations of humans are relevant. (Me, layman)

If humans are the only ones whose observations are relevent, it seems
to me that you're singling out human observations as the sole
possessors of a certain quality. That means special.

I note you didn't directly take on the brain damage case and its worth
pointing out that chimps know numbers:
http://www.rnw.nl/science/html/chimps000703.html

Again, my defintion of observer is this:

Any particle or configuration of particles that interacts with its
environment.

No definition of observer or observation comes close to withstanding
the criticisms that other definitions fail.

Again, thanks for the discussion. You might think I'm ignoring the
fact that your apparent interest in discussion is less than sincere,
but I still appreciate the oppurtunity to discuss these important
concepts.

Oh, and one other thing:

> If one has an hypothesis which the scientific community at large
> does not seem interested in testing, one must ask oneself why. Of
> course, one is free to attempt to *convince*...

I hope you're not under the impression that the posters of sci.physics
represent the scientific community at large.

As far as I know the scientific community at large is not aware of my
hypothesis. 

--
Mike Helland
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm

Relevant Pages