Can an Observer die?

reply to post by Tearman


You said:

Also note that there is no shared meaning between the term "observer" often used within the context of quantum mechanics, and the concept we have of the "observer" that is "this person" in a human being.

What? Have you ever heard of the double slit experiment?

Humans can observe quantum states. When we measure which path information, we're inexplicably linked with the quantum universe. Physicist have been trying to separate quantum mechanics and classical physics but to no avail.

So whether I'm observing an episode of Dexter or observing which path the photon took through the double slits, there both the same thing, OBSERVATION OF INFORMATION.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Say a person walks across the street, gets hit by a car and dies. The only Observers that observe his death are those that still exist in that universe.

what's your point?

The person who got hit by the car doesn't become a non observer. They don't observe non existence.

They don't observe existence or non existence. They don't observe anything because they aren't an observer anymore... they (as in the person who was "this person" for that human), they simply are not.

...
In the context of death terms like Observation and Existence are meaningless.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Tearman

 

You said:

Also note that there is no shared meaning between the term "observer" often used within the context of quantum mechanics, and the concept we have of the "observer" that is "this person" in a human being.

What? Have you ever heard of the double slit experiment?

Humans can observe quantum states. When we measure which path information, we're inexplicably linked with the quantum universe. Physicist have been trying to separate quantum mechanics and classical physics but to no avail.

So whether I'm observing an episode of Dexter or observing which path the photon took through the double slits, there both the same thing, OBSERVATION OF INFORMATION.

The "observer" of those experiments has nothing to do with "the observer" which is "this person". Any measuring device can act as the observer. No human need even participate.

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Generalized Quantum Theory, as an abstraction of the processes of quantum mechanics, is being effectively applied in an increasing number of fields, notably biology. physics and physicists no longer have a monopoly on this formalism. the more that you (and others) pretend that this monopoly exists, the further behind you are setting yourself.

you may continue to persue dogmatic beliefs as you like, but please do not imagine that science has "got your back". you are on the losing team here, friend.

Relaxing some restrictionsand definitions from quantum theory proper yields an axiomatic framework that can be applied to any type of system. Most importantly, it keeps the core of the quantum theoretical formalism. It is capable of handling complementary observables, i.e. descriptors which are non-commuting, incompatible and yet collectively required to fully describe certain situations. It also predicts a generalised form of non-local correlations that in quantum theory are known as entanglement. This generalised version is not quantum entanglement but an analogue form of holistic, non-local connectedness of elements within systems, predicted to occur whenever elements within systems are described by observables which are complementary to the description of the whole system.

scholrly treatment of GQT.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I do not mean to negate your interpretation. I am only showing that your same data set can be used to argue the opposite of your proposal.

reply to post by Tearman


no human NEED participate, yet in the case of life, the human DOES participate.

(please see my above post WRT thermodynamic systems.)

I understand what you are saying. And I'm aware of all related experiments and the significance of each. I like where it's going but so much more needs to be developed and understood. For instance, the many worlds theory works great with nice and even 50/50 chances, but what about 100% chances? Say, hypothetically of course, you have a loaded gun that never misfires, loaded with ammo that always works, and you pull the trigger? Or even a 60/40 chance? By definition, the chances are higher that you would cease observing than not.

You see what I'm saying? It's definitely a great and increasingly plausible theory but not bulletproof.

reply to post by Tearman


You said:

They don't observe existence or non existence. They don't observe anything because they aren't an observer anymore... they (as in the person who was "this person" for that human), they simply are not.

What is this based on?

You just proved my point. There's no scientific evidence that an Observer ceases observing. You said they don't observe anything anymore and you know this how? Direct me to a scientific journal where there's a paper that shows that AN OBSERVER STOPS OBSERVING ANYTHING.

That makes no sense. If they don't observe anymore what are they a non observer? An OBSERVER by definition can't cease observing.

You said:

The "observer" of those experiments has nothing to do with "the observer" which is "this person". Any measuring device can act as the observer. No human need even participate.

Again, you're not making any sense. What do you mean when you say "this person"?

How can you have a measuring device without "this person"?

Again, you need to explain who "this person" is.

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

I do not mean to negate your interpretation. I am only showing that your same data set can be used to argue the opposite of your proposal.

How so?

reply to post by 200457


I understand what you're saying but in a multiverse you would never have a gun that that never misfires. They're would always be the probability that the gun misfires.

But then the converse would have to be true as well, and thus back to 100% chance.

It seems as if more and more people are coming to conclusions very similar to this. It's an existential crisis of sorts. I began contemplating this about 2 years ago. After that, I saw a lot of people realizing the same thing. That you can't ever stop observing. You cannot experience nothingness. You cannot exist in nonexistence.

I have been knocked out drunk on my arse before. When I came to, it was a period of nothingness in my mind, but I didn't experience it. It was just a memory in my mind.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
That makes no sense. If they don't observe anymore what are they a non observer?

They don't become a non observer, they don't become anything. They are not. It is just as if (for example) a building were demolished. The building does not become a non building, it does not become anything. There is no building anymore! You seem to be arguing that things cannot cease to be because definitions describe things that are.

You said:

The "observer" of those experiments has nothing to do with "the observer" which is "this person". Any measuring device can act as the observer. No human need even participate.

Again, you're not making any sense. What do you mean when you say "this person"?

"This person" is the concept that humans have which is "the-part-of-reality-that-is-inside-this-mind and the-body-that-sees-and-moves-for-this-viewpoint." In other words, the self. I was under the impression that you believed that the observer of a system (such as the measuring device in the double slit experiment) is the same thing that we think of as the self, when in fact it can be anything that can interact with the system. Consciousness, or "the human observer" has no special status as some kind of uber observer as far as quantum mechanics is concerned. And anyway, even if it were, what the heck would that have to do with whether a person can cease to exist?

How can you have a measuring device without "this person"?

anything that can interact with anything can make a measurement.

... there's no scientific evidence that an Observer ceases observing. You said they don't observe anything anymore and you know this how? ...

Example of observer ceasing to observe by way of ceasing to exist:
note lack of sensory organs.

Originally posted by 200457
I understand what you are saying. And I'm aware of all related experiments and the significance of each. I like where it's going but so much more needs to be developed and understood. For instance, the many worlds theory works great with nice and even 50/50 chances, but what about 100% chances? Say, hypothetically of course, you have a loaded gun that never misfires, loaded with ammo that always works, and you pull the trigger? Or even a 60/40 chance? By definition, the chances are higher that you would cease observing than not.

You see what I'm saying? It's definitely a great and increasingly plausible theory but not bulletproof.

edit on 20-11-2011 by 200457 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2011 by 200457 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2011 by 200457 because: Just take it a little further...

I think this scenario would work somewhat like the Grandfather paradox. That is, you can never travel back in time to kill your own grandfather, as something would always, always prevent you from achieving this. I think something would always prevent you from accomplishing suicide. Whether it be a momentary repentance, a misfiring gun, or intervention from family/friends/anybody.

reply to post by Tearman


You are missing the entire point of this hypothesis.

Obviously nobody here believes that people live forever and never die. It's silly to suggest that kind of ignorance by way of an image of a skull. Everyone who has ever lived has physically died, save those alive right now. What he/others are suggesting is that your awareness or consciousness lives on, whether by way of an afterlife or by moving into a universe among infinite universes where you never died, therefore unable to experience that death yourself.

reply to post by OrphenFire


Possibly.It's also very possible we will never know for sure. Nice sig btw

double post

reply to post by Tearman


You said:

They don't become a non observer, they don't become anything. They are not. It is just as if (for example) a building were demolished. The building does not become a non building, it does not become anything. There is no building anymore! You seem to be arguing that things cannot cease to be because definitions describe things that are.

Let's look at your example. You said when a building gets blown up it doesn't become anything. Sure it does, it's a demolished building. The building doesn't cease to exist, it's just in another form.

Again you prove my point. Just because a building isn't a building anymore doesn't mean the building ceases existing. It just took on another form. Maybe it will be a parking lot or a school next. This is exactly what happens with consciousness. It's just in a different state. It doesn't cease to exist.

You said:

"This person" is the concept that humans have which is "the-part-of-reality-that-is-inside-this-mind and the-body-that-sees-and-moves-for-this-viewpoint." In other words, the self.

What? That makes no sense. What did you mean by "this person" in the context of your post?

The point is there's no evidence that an Observer ceases Observing. An Observer observes which path information, a measuring device can't do that. A measuring device can record it but it doesn't know which path. So how can you know which path information without a human observer?

Consciousness can't cease to exist no more than an electron can cease to exist.

Originally posted by OrphenFire
reply to post by Tearman

 

You are missing the entire point of this hypothesis.

Obviously nobody here believes that people live forever and never die. It's silly to suggest that kind of ignorance by way of an image of a skull. Everyone who has ever lived has physically died, save those alive right now. What he/others are suggesting is that your awareness or consciousness lives on, whether by way of an afterlife or by moving into a universe among infinite universes where you never died, therefore unable to experience that death yourself.

Ditto

Only the"thought"
of the observer dies