Can an Observer die?

Wow the thread has grown !

See for me the thing is, science is no closer to an understanding of anything, the further science looks at the building blocks (particles) of everything, the more elusive a complete understanding becomes.

Its like we see flashes of truth, but not the whole truth, as far as I'm aware certain principles have been established, and are taken to be true...

Energy cannot be destroyed, it can only change its form.

Information cannot be destroyed it can only change its form

Based upon this, as we are mader of both information, and energy, it follows that we must continue to exist in some shape or form.

So in conclusion, technically based upon the above, an observer cannot die, only change its arrangement.

I think Stephen Harwkins once said philosophy has failed to keep up with science, and perhaps that is true, but when you look at a thread like this one, you see how relevant philosophy is, and how actually a leap of faith through metaphysical thinking, could help inspire physics in the future.

At our nature, is chaos, but from choas comes order, yet logic, and mathematics are a smokescreen, they are a human tool to aid human understanding in a nature driven environment.

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.

I'm fully aware of what they are suggesting. I'm saying the entire argument makes no sense and has to start over from basics and work through each step one at a time.

How do you get from this...

By definition an Observer observes.

to this...

So either there has to be an afterlife or if Many Worlds is true then the Observer will always observe a universe where they continue observing.

I see no reason at all to reach that conclusion, it comes out of nowhere. If there is a reason, it hasn't been pointed out.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
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.

Wrong. Rubble is not a building. The building is gone and now there is rubble. The building has not turned into rubble, its constituent parts have turned into rubble.

Again you prove my point. Just because a building isn't a building anymore doesn't mean the building ceases existing.

But that IS what ceasing to exist means.

It just took on another form.

It did not take on another form. It's parts have. The definition of a building requires that its parts be in the form of a building, otherwise there is no building. In the same sense, consciousness (whatever that is) is only consciousness if its parts are in the from of consciousness.

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?

I don't know how you can accuse me of not making any sense when you say things like this. In fact in the realm of quantum mechanics, anything can make a measurement. It does not have to be a person. And just exactly how does the concept of a human "knowing" something relate at all to whether consciousness survives death.

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

How could you possibly know that consciousness can't cease to exist? And who says electrons can't cease to exist? en.wikipedia.org... The suggestion seems to be that consciousness is something analogous to energy, which on a fundamental level is never created nor destroyed. Why should we believe that consciousness shares this property?

reply to post by Tearman


You said:

It did not take on another form. It's parts have. The definition of a building requires that its parts be in the form of a building, otherwise there is no building.

LOL, it didn't take another form, it's parts have?? The building is the sum of it's parts. You keep making my point for me.

You said:

How could you possibly know that consciousness can't cease to exist? And who says electrons can't cease to exist? en.wikipedia.org...

Did you even read what you posted? From your link:

Electron–positron annihilation occurs when an electron (e−
) and a positron (e+
, the electron's antiparticle) collide. The result of the collision is the annihilation of the electron and positron, and the creation of gamma ray photons or, at higher energies, other particles:

This supports exactly what I'm saying. The electrons don't cease to exist. Look at the word annihilation.

Annihilation is defined as "total destruction" or "complete obliteration" of an object;[1] having its root in the Latin nihil (nothing). A literal translation is "to make into nothing".

In physics, the word is used to denote the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle.[2] Since energy and momentum must be conserved, the particles are not actually made into nothing, but rather into new particles.

Again, thanks for proving my point.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Tearman

 

You said:

It did not take on another form. It's parts have. The definition of a building requires that its parts be in the form of a building, otherwise there is no building.

LOL, it didn't take another form, it's parts have?? The building is the sum of it's parts.

What the heck? That's exactly the same thing I was saying. That the ****SUM**** of its parts make up the building... HEAVY emphasis on the word sum. That is, all of its parts (together as a building). You are saying that the building itself still exists, and you can somehow still walk into its front door and live or work inside of it as you could with a building that hasn't been demolished. I'm saying it only makes sense to call it a building if its parts are still in the form of a building. We could think of its demolished parts as formerly a building, but no longer capable of functioning as a building.

In the same way we could think of the parts of an expired consciousness as formerly part of a consciousness, but no longer capable of functioning as a consciousness.

You keep making my point for me.

I feel the same way about you! Maybe we actually agree but don't realize it.

You said:

How could you possibly know that consciousness can't cease to exist? And who says electrons can't cease to exist? en.wikipedia.org...

Did you even read what you posted? From your link:

Electron–positron annihilation occurs when an electron (e−
) and a positron (e+
, the electron's antiparticle) collide. The result of the collision is the annihilation of the electron and positron, and the creation of gamma ray photons or, at higher energies, other particles:

This supports exactly what I'm saying. The electrons don't cease to exist. Look at the word annihilation.

Annihilation is defined as "total destruction" or "complete obliteration" of an object;[1] having its root in the Latin nihil (nothing). A literal translation is "to make into nothing".

In physics, the word is used to denote the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle.[2] Since energy and momentum must be conserved, the particles are not actually made into nothing, but rather into new particles.

Again, thanks for proving my point.

Of course I read what I posted. The electron and positron are destroyed and in their place there is now gamma rays or other particles. I.E. THERE IS NO LONGER ANY ELECTRON. Its energy and momentum persist in the from of other particles, but no longer as an electron.

reply to post by solargeddon


Good post. You said:

Energy cannot be destroyed, it can only change its form.

Information cannot be destroyed it can only change its form

Based upon this, as we are mader of both information, and energy, it follows that we must continue to exist in some shape or form.

So in conclusion, technically based upon the above, an observer cannot die, only change its arrangement.

Exactly!

For some reason though, people want to act like this applies to everything in the universe but consciousness. So everything changes forms except the human observer. So we die and we vanish from existence. It makes no sense.

reply to post by Tearman


The parts don't cease to exist. So your point about the building is meaningless. You're whole point was that the building doesn't become anything after it's demolished. That's not the case. You said:

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!

Again, the building is always something. You said the building doesn't become anything. Again, not true.

You said:

The electron and positron are destroyed and in their place there is now gamma rays or other particles. I.E. THERE IS NO LONGER ANY ELECTRON. Its energy and momentum persist in the from of other particles, but no longer as an electron.

It's energy persist in the form of other particles. Again, that's exactly what I'm saying. You could have said:

The energy of the OBSERVER persist in the form of other universes or the energy of the OBSERVER persist the afterlife.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Tearman

 

The parts don't cease to exist. So your point about the building is meaningless. You're whole point was that the building doesn't become anything after it's demolished. That's not the case. You said:

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!

Again, the building is always something. You said the building doesn't become anything. Again, not true.

You said:

The electron and positron are destroyed and in their place there is now gamma rays or other particles. I.E. THERE IS NO LONGER ANY ELECTRON. Its energy and momentum persist in the from of other particles, but no longer as an electron.

It's energy persist in the form of other particles. Again, that's exactly what I'm saying. You could have said:

The energy of the OBSERVER persist in the form of other universes or the energy of the OBSERVER persist the afterlife.

I agree completely that the energy of an observer persists after life, but that because it has been rearranged it no longer has the capacity to act as an observer. You can point and say, "Look, here's the energy from that electron that was annihilated." But what you cannot say is, "Look, here's that electron."

The laws of conservation of energy and momentum cannot be used to suggest that whole objects or consciousness survive their own destruction. Because only the energy and momentum are preserved, the whole configuration of the system is very destructible.

I'm sorry, but I think there is a clear distinction between the concepts of an object as a whole, and the individual parts that make it up.

reply to post by Tearman


Now you agree LOL. You said:

I agree completely that the energy of an observer persists after life, but that because it has been rearranged it no longer has the capacity to act as an observer. You can point and say, "Look, here's the energy from that electron that was annihilated." But what you cannot say is, "Look, here's that electron."

"but that because it has been rearranged it no longer has the capacity to act as an observer."

What is this based on? Where's the scientific paper that says an observer is no longer an observer even though it's energy persists after life?

These are your words. You said the Observers energy persists even at death. You then said that energy is rearranged and it no longer has the capacity to act as an observer.

What scientific paper are you basing this on?

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Tearman

 

Now you agree LOL. You said:

I agree completely that the energy of an observer persists after life, but that because it has been rearranged it no longer has the capacity to act as an observer. You can point and say, "Look, here's the energy from that electron that was annihilated." But what you cannot say is, "Look, here's that electron."

"but that because it has been rearranged it no longer has the capacity to act as an observer."

What is this based on? Where's the scientific paper that says an observer is no longer an observer even though it's energy persists after life?

These are your words. You said the Observers energy persists even at death. You then said that energy is rearranged and it no longer has the capacity to act as an observer.

What scientific paper are you basing this on?

Where is the evidence that it can continue to function as an observer? We are pretty familiar with what happens to the parts of a person after they die. Nowhere is there a reason to believe those parts remain conscious, or aware, or still somehow a person.

[sorry, I edited my previous post after you posted your reply. I have a tendency to edit a lot. What I added was: "I'm sorry, but I think there is a clear distinction between the concepts of an object as a whole, and the individual parts that make it up."]

Again, you just keep proving my point. You said:

Where is the evidence that it can continue to function as an observer?

Where is the evidence that it functions as anything other than an Observer? This is exactly what I have been saying throughout the thread.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Again, you just keep proving my point. You said:

Where is the evidence that it can continue to function as an observer?

Where is the evidence that it functions as anything other than an Observer? This is exactly what I have been saying throughout the thread.

Just to be clear, when you use the word "oberver", you're talking about consciousness, right?

Okay, you are probably pretty familiar with what happens to a person's remains when they die. Can you point to any of the remaining parts that formerly made up that person, and show me why we should believe they are still conscious?

Probably a good place to start would be to describe what you mean by the word "consciousness". Personally, I don't think there is any obvious definition of the word. Though with a concrete definition it would probably be a lot easier to talk about the concept. At least we can be sure we're talking about the same thing.

reply to post by Tearman


Let's start where you ended up. You said that an Observers energy survives death. Let's look at MWI. When the Observer crosses the street and gets hit by a car. In one universe he dies and in another universe he gets hit by the car and breaks his legs. The Observers energy will be in the universe where he just broke his legs. He's no longer observing the universe where he died.

The Observers energy could be observing an after life or higher dimensional realm.

There's no evidence that the Observer ceases Observing. By your own admission the Observer survives death. You would then need scientific evidence that shows the Observer ceases observing.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Tearman

 

Let's start where you ended up. You said that an Observers energy survives death. Let's look at MWI. When the Observer crosses the street and gets hit by a car. In one universe he dies and in another universe he gets hit by the car and breaks his legs. The Observers energy will be in the universe where he just broke his legs. He's no longer observing the universe where he died.

Except you're forgetting that there were two observers and now one of them is dead.

...

There's no evidence that the Observer ceases Observing. By your own admission the Observer survives death. You would then need scientific evidence that shows the Observer ceases observing.

I never said the observer survives death. I said its parts continue to exist, but not in the form of an observer.

reply to post by Tearman


1. There wasn't two observers just one. It's one observer in a state of superposition.

2. Yes, you said the Observer survives death. You said:

I agree completely that the energy of an observer persists after life, but that because it has been rearranged it no longer has the capacity to act as an observer.

You said the Observer survives death but the energy has been rearranged and he can no longer act as an Observer. You provided zero evidence to support this rearrangement.

You all seam to forget that there is not just 1 observer there are as many observer as there are possibilities in the universe the universe has an endless amount of possibilities just like there are observer for every one possibility.

You can't have one with out the other. that would lead to a un balances universe.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Tearman

 

1. There wasn't two observers just one. It's one observer in a state of superposition.

But the many worlds interpretation asserts there are two worlds, and they are both equally real, and that each one experiences a different state. One of the observers experiences surviving, and the other experiences its final moments, and then nothing. en.wikipedia.org...

"MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly even non-denumerably infinitely many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds" "MWI treats the other histories or worlds as real"

So in other words the guy in the universe in which he died, really did die because his history is equally as real as the other guy's, in which that one survived. It also says that the different histories don't communicate with each other, so the guy who sees he's dying in the one world can't suddenly teleport to the world in which he survives.

2. Yes, you said the Observer survives death. You said:

I agree completely that the energy of an observer persists after life, but that because it has been rearranged it no longer has the capacity to act as an observer.

You said the Observer survives death but the energy has been rearranged and he can no longer act as an Observer. You provided zero evidence to support this rearrangement.

Well I think the mind is a product of the brain: that the mind is something that the brain does. I think there is a lot of evidence to support this because changes to the brain have affects on the mind. Severe damage to the brain appears to incapacitate normal awareness in an otherwise living human.

If the brain is severely damaged, obviously it isn't going to be capable of doing anything like making a mind. If the brain is destroyed, it isn't going to be doing anything at all. I don't believe anyone has ever shown to have discovered a human mind operating without a brain. I know a lot of people believe in things like ghosts, but there doesn't seem to be any proof of their existence.

Originally posted by Bkrmn
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

Please pardon my ignorance, but what the heck are you talking about?
The required "line 2".
And for anyone who might be interested in reading it, here's line 3!

There is NO required second line!! Stoppit people!! If you came up with something of substance in one line, that's fine!!! There is no automatic detector! The mods don't care either! However, something of substance does not include responses such as "I agree" or "" or "That's rediculous"
Your response was fine the way it is! I hate to take away from the cleverness of the "third line" joke of yours, but, its not necessary! What you just did was pointless! sigh... Carry on.

To the op: I've wondered at this, too... But maybe ghosts can observe as well!

reply to post by Tearman


You said:

But the many worlds interpretation asserts there are two worlds, and they are both equally real, and that each one experiences a different state. One of the observers experiences surviving, and the other experiences its final moments, and then nothing. en.wikipedia.org...

So in other words the guy in the universe in which he died, really did die because his history is equally as real as the other guy's, in which that one survived. It also says that the different histories don't communicate with each other, so the guy who sees he's dying in the one world can't suddenly teleport to the world in which he survives.

This is a misunderstanding of MWI. It's not two separate worlds before the splitting occurs. So there's no need to teleport anywhere LOL.

So when the guy crosses the street and he gets hit by a car, the world splits. So there's a universe where he dies and there's a universe where he survives but maybe his legs are broken. So the Observers energy doesn't exist in the universe where he died. It's in the universe where he broke his legs.

Here's some more info:

Using the new science of information theory, Everett made a case that the observer does not see a "smear" because she herself has split, or "branched" into multiple observers

Each copy of the human observer is correlated with a possible event in the quantum system: radioactive metal-particle-Geiger counter-human observer. According to Everett, the laws of quantum mechanics dictate that the splitting observers will lead different lives in separate universes that continually branch off from interactions at the speed of light. Each branching universe creates a distinct record of its own history in the quantum environment.

www.pbs.org...

Your talk about brain damage doesn't make sense in light of the fact that you said the Observers energy survives death. For instance, there's near death experiences where blind people see. This would support your conclusion that the Observer's energy survives death.

So what exactly are you debating? You already said the Observer's energy survives death. You then say it's rearranged and can't function as an observer but you provide no evidence to support this notion.Where is there any evidence that an Observer ceases observing at death.

reply to post by 3n19m470


You said:

To the op: I've wondered at this, too... But maybe ghosts can observe as well!

I agree. Maybe ghost observe reality at a different frequency. Maybe humans are on frequency 107.9 and Ghost are on frequency 93.1. Maybe in the future someone will discover a way to communicate with 93.1 and humans and ghosts can communicate. Imagine talking on the cell phone to a dead uncle.