Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 11 February 2013 09:44 PM

Doug (CFI),  thank you for letting me openly question if Observation and Nature are equal interacting objects in the Cosmos/Universe

That’s not what he did, arnoldg. Suggest you read what he actually wrote.

@Arnoldg, moreover, that is not what you did in you OP.

Then also, Nature is an object, Observation is an activity (not an object). The act of observation collapses a probability wave and reveals the object.
This is an example of cause/effect, not of equivalence.

I was summarizing, but you seem to have created a question for philosophy;

In order for a probability to exist it has to be seen,

In order for something to be seen there has to be observation;

Ordinary observation refers to descriptions by and for ourselves—-

Such as ourselves as an effect of physical and observational interactions.

Then observation could become an equivalent of a predicate for a postulate to

Axiomatic and theoretical probabilities from knowledge—-

as well equal in the probable effects of interactions with nature time space—-
.

arnoldg - 12 February 2013 04:53 PM

In order for probability to exist it has to be seen, in order for something to be seen there has to observation, when does the cosmos/universe exist without observation?

For several billion years after the Big Bang there weren’t enough heavy elements for multicelluar life to exist. It took a few good rounds of supernova explosions to create those elements. Then sentient life had to evolve to do the observing. Observation creates nothing tangible.  Think it through more deeply. You are showing a very ethnocentric attitude toward the universe. The universe had to exist long before any life forms that could observe it arose.

In order for a probability to exist it has to be seen,

No, it doesn’t.

The gist of what you appear to be claiming is that reality and existance depends on whether or not we humans observe it.

It doesn’t. Reality doesn’t give a flip if we observe it or not.

ignored by CFI

This proposal has been about modern philosophy, objectivity (metaphysics), biology—-! 

Not about faith or reason, nor psychology, neurology, cognition, consciousness or astro/geophysics———!

Final proposal: Is it possible for Nature Time Space to interact without Observation;

Can we refer to Observation as part of the means for understanding life?

arnoldg, how long are you going to continue to spout absolute nonsense?

arnoldg - 13 February 2013 01:06 AM

CFI ignored you guys, not me

Final proposal: Is it possible for Nature Time Space to interact without Observation;

Apparently you ignored my post at #18.

arnoldg - 13 February 2013 01:06 AM

Final proposal: Is it possible for Nature Time Space to interact without Observation;

Yes, because of the Tao.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao

Significance of the Tao:

Within these contexts Tao signifies the primordial essence or fundamental nature of the universe. In the foundational text of Taoism, the Tao Te Ching, Laozi explains that Tao is not a ‘name’ for a ‘thing’ but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe.

Flow of the universe:

Dao can be roughly thought of as the flow of the universe, or as some essence or pattern behind the natural world that keeps the universe balanced and ordered.

Consider dark matter/energy which makes up 96% of the universe of which we know nothing and neither can they be observed but “that keeps the universe balanced and ordered”.

I am going to read and compare the origins of Taoist/Way
With the origins of Metaphysics and Philosophy to Ways,
To try, for our words, to have close to the same meaning.

As I have spoken about Observation at CFI—-
I have meant, it is part of dark matter/dark/energy,
“underlying the Universe eternally nameless” Dao De Jing-32. Laozi, wiki

click to wikipedia: Taoism to “Tao and Te Immanent” to wikipedia “Immanent” “ancient Greek philosophies and Buddhism (second paragraph awareness)” if you finish the page there are different examples of seeing “to universe and or to people”
to wikipedia eastern philosophies, read all and find many similarities of philosophical origins and thought——

Could you say dark matter/energy and light matter/energy, today, are what Heaven and Earth were to our first philosophers?

Can some philosophers use math`s syntactic and semantic predicates for word descriptions of thought as measurements in time?