"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.
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?
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?