"So, any object (say, an atom) undergoing dynamics on a moving train will have its time slowed down with respect to the objects stationary on the platform." <3 the rise of panpsychism? :)
"nothing in physics, including quantum physics and relativity, requires the existence of observers." nothing _requires_ it, OK, but who's there to talk about it if not?
A first problem with your argument, Vlatko, is semantic. How do we define what is an observer and what is not? A broad definition includes any individuated entity in relation to another. The relationship includes reciprocal observation. But you might not agree with that. Because you are exclusively using the perspective of quantum micromechanisms. They unfold with mathematical impassiveness. For them, there is, in fact, no observer. There is no physicist either. This perspective actually denigrates your own existence, or at least displaces it into a place that is not physical, since it is impossible to see it appear from quantum equations.
That is to say, your approach makes classical physics and macroscopic reality an illusion. It does not contradict quantum mechanics because it is not, in fact, real. A mere appearance. But for whom? Who observes this appearance? Without double vision you cannot understand the whole world.
This is a definition, but it is not sufficient. A physical process does not « observe ». It is modified by its own inputs, for example, the arrival of a photon, but not by the interpretation of that arrival. Defining an observer is impossible without involving the complex dimension, and this is not defined as a dimension in physics, only as an aspect (aspect for what or whom?) arising from processes.
Just because a physical process doesn't observe doesn't mean we aren't physical processes. "We" are something more. Do you experience yourself as a swarm of quantum particles, An? If you don't want to obscure your mind, or evacuate it into a mystical universe, you must resort to emergences and thus to our complex dimension.
it is true that what you consider to be jean-pierre is different from what I consider to be jean-pierre, and in that sense the observer, “you”, is a mind construct and not physical reality and thus can’t really interact with physical reality.
In that sense, I can understand the “we are something more” phrase.
The first level being the indivisible atoms, the complex swarm of causes and effects that allows the loop to recognize itself as a body. but "jean-pierre" is not your body. you identify with the body (which is OK, nothing agains that).
Physically, without any projected mental constructs, we are a self-sustaining cause-effect loop; measurement -as i’m parroting from elsewhere- is the coupling of this loop to the measurement’s outcome, and its further coupling to all other loops.
Your previous comments were irrelevant, An. I am a doctor and if you really feel like a swarm of atoms, I would have advised you to consult a colleague ;-) On this last comment, you are recovering your mind. What is blocking you is thinking that introducing the complex dimension makes you leave physical reality. No! Complexity is a staircase towards metaphysics, but at no point is there a break with the base. Each step is a perfectly identified process, for example two quantons that become entangled to become an entity greater than the sum of the parts. Thousands of steps higher, you are in conscious space, a level capping a deep complexity created by neural graphs.
just realized: the most seemingly contradictory part of your i-am-not-a-physical-process position is that your proposed "beyond-physical" observer interacts with the physical process, and 'measures'.
i am 100% a physical process. i do not know what do you mean by <<"we" are 'something more' (sic)>>
now that you ask, i do experience myself as a very complex swarm of 'atoms' - indivisible units-, yes.
what do you mean by: "If you don't want to obscure your mind, or evacuate it into a mystical universe, you must resort to emergences and thus to our complex dimension." ? "emergence" seems to be clear, but "complex dimension"?
obscuring my mind would be to think I am not a physical process, as you seem to think:
that there is a part of you that is indeed a body, a physical process, but then there is a "non-physical, unexplained, surplus" that does the observing (?!).
(please, correct me if i am wrong in my assessment about your stance.)
Agree with is perspective. It rightly treats observers as physical systems among others, without assigning them any special status. Entanglement—not observation—is what shapes quantum outcomes, and coherence loss explains classical emergence. The insistence on observers often adds unnecessary confusion and misrepresents the actual physics.
if you consider a standing em wave on the surface of a torus, you get two quantization numbers. so, you can go from em to qm: Deriving the Schrödinger Equation from Source-Free Maxwell Dynamics https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394095445_Deriving_the_Schrodinger_Equation_from_Source-Free_Maxwell_Dynamics
"So, any object (say, an atom) undergoing dynamics on a moving train will have its time slowed down with respect to the objects stationary on the platform." <3 the rise of panpsychism? :)
"nothing in physics, including quantum physics and relativity, requires the existence of observers." nothing _requires_ it, OK, but who's there to talk about it if not?
also, how are you defining "an observer"?
A first problem with your argument, Vlatko, is semantic. How do we define what is an observer and what is not? A broad definition includes any individuated entity in relation to another. The relationship includes reciprocal observation. But you might not agree with that. Because you are exclusively using the perspective of quantum micromechanisms. They unfold with mathematical impassiveness. For them, there is, in fact, no observer. There is no physicist either. This perspective actually denigrates your own existence, or at least displaces it into a place that is not physical, since it is impossible to see it appear from quantum equations.
That is to say, your approach makes classical physics and macroscopic reality an illusion. It does not contradict quantum mechanics because it is not, in fact, real. A mere appearance. But for whom? Who observes this appearance? Without double vision you cannot understand the whole world.
my definition of observer: a self-sustaining cause-effect loop.
This is a definition, but it is not sufficient. A physical process does not « observe ». It is modified by its own inputs, for example, the arrival of a photon, but not by the interpretation of that arrival. Defining an observer is impossible without involving the complex dimension, and this is not defined as a dimension in physics, only as an aspect (aspect for what or whom?) arising from processes.
are you saying that we are not physical processes? "a physical process does not observe" ??!! what do you mean?
Just because a physical process doesn't observe doesn't mean we aren't physical processes. "We" are something more. Do you experience yourself as a swarm of quantum particles, An? If you don't want to obscure your mind, or evacuate it into a mystical universe, you must resort to emergences and thus to our complex dimension.
it is true that what you consider to be jean-pierre is different from what I consider to be jean-pierre, and in that sense the observer, “you”, is a mind construct and not physical reality and thus can’t really interact with physical reality.
In that sense, I can understand the “we are something more” phrase.
The first level being the indivisible atoms, the complex swarm of causes and effects that allows the loop to recognize itself as a body. but "jean-pierre" is not your body. you identify with the body (which is OK, nothing agains that).
Physically, without any projected mental constructs, we are a self-sustaining cause-effect loop; measurement -as i’m parroting from elsewhere- is the coupling of this loop to the measurement’s outcome, and its further coupling to all other loops.
Your previous comments were irrelevant, An. I am a doctor and if you really feel like a swarm of atoms, I would have advised you to consult a colleague ;-) On this last comment, you are recovering your mind. What is blocking you is thinking that introducing the complex dimension makes you leave physical reality. No! Complexity is a staircase towards metaphysics, but at no point is there a break with the base. Each step is a perfectly identified process, for example two quantons that become entangled to become an entity greater than the sum of the parts. Thousands of steps higher, you are in conscious space, a level capping a deep complexity created by neural graphs.
just realized: the most seemingly contradictory part of your i-am-not-a-physical-process position is that your proposed "beyond-physical" observer interacts with the physical process, and 'measures'.
i am 100% a physical process. i do not know what do you mean by <<"we" are 'something more' (sic)>>
now that you ask, i do experience myself as a very complex swarm of 'atoms' - indivisible units-, yes.
what do you mean by: "If you don't want to obscure your mind, or evacuate it into a mystical universe, you must resort to emergences and thus to our complex dimension." ? "emergence" seems to be clear, but "complex dimension"?
obscuring my mind would be to think I am not a physical process, as you seem to think:
that there is a part of you that is indeed a body, a physical process, but then there is a "non-physical, unexplained, surplus" that does the observing (?!).
(please, correct me if i am wrong in my assessment about your stance.)
I wish you good luck and a brilliant career as a plumber.
Agree with is perspective. It rightly treats observers as physical systems among others, without assigning them any special status. Entanglement—not observation—is what shapes quantum outcomes, and coherence loss explains classical emergence. The insistence on observers often adds unnecessary confusion and misrepresents the actual physics.
Interesting. Since you mentioned Dr. Marletto, do you think that a constructor theory framework could provide valuable insights to these problems?