The Argument from Arbitrary Metaphysics

[BaalChatzaf]

In a sense, you could say that nothing would exist if there were literally no one to observe it. Or at least the existence would be meaningless. With nobody in existence, it wouldn't matter a damn whether the rest of the universe continued on obliviously or winked out. What difference? We wouldn't be around to care.

You are getting close to what Korzybski said - there is no such thing as an object in perfect isolation, at the very least there must be an observer. This is a statement to combat what he called 'elementalism' - the act of dividing verbally what cannot be divided empirically. You see this throughout our language as in 'reason' and 'emotions', it's not possible to separate the two empirically yet we speak about them as if we can.

What did the poor Kosmos do until observers evolved from simpler matter? In The Beginning, there were no (sentient) observers. Could it be that your idea of what an observer is, might be flawed?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

What did the poor Kosmos do until observers evolved from simpler matter? In The Beginning, there were no (sentient) observers. Could it be that your idea of what an observer is, might be flawed?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Technically, we assume what existed before we came along - we weren't there to observe it were we? Tomorrow the sun may not be there - we can't say for sure until we see it.

[Brant Gaede]

What did the poor Kosmos do until observers evolved from simpler matter? In The Beginning, there were no (sentient) observers. Could it be that your idea of what an observer is, might be flawed?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Technically, we assume what existed before we came along - we weren't there to observe it were we? Tomorrow the sun may not be there - we can't say for sure until we see it.

That all depends on what the definition of "sure" is. Observation per se is vastly over-rated. Your tentativeness goes way beyond legitimate scientific tentativeness and would drape us in paralyzing ignorance even in the presence of workable knowledge.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

That all depends on what the definition of "sure" is. Observation per se is vastly over-rated. Your tentativeness goes way beyond legitimate scientific tentativeness and would drape us in paralyzing ignorance even in the presence of workable knowledge.

--Brant

I'm not being tentative at all - there can be no science or "things" without an observer. Case closed.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not being tentative at all - there can be no science or "things" without an observer. Case closed.

GS,

No it ain't.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

1. The cat itself is an observer, thus contaminating the experiment. An observation is an observation and a feline one obviously impacts the quantum level. I find it curious that I have not read anyone mention this yet. Some may have. I just have not encountered it.

That is in itself a good point against the original argument (and it has been made in the past). But it is no longer relevant, as we now know that observing by a consciousness is not necessary. Any molecule or photon can do the trick (that is what decoherence is about).

But wasn't there something about the double slit experiment where the detectors were 'on', but were not otherwise observable (data wasn't collected somehow) and the wave did not decohere? Am I not remembering this right? Did not this lead to the conscious observer issue?

Bob

[Dragonfly]

But wasn't there something about the double slit experiment where the detectors were 'on', but were not otherwise observable (data wasn't collected somehow) and the wave did not decohere? Am I not remembering this right? Did not this lead to the conscious observer issue?

Perhaps you're thinking of one of those videos that were discussed on this forum. As I said then, it gave a false impression by leaving out many details. With a clever set-up of the experiment you can erase the information about the way the electron followed and make the state again coherent. At a small scale decoherence isn't necessarily irreversible. But for larger systems, like macroscopic systems, it definitely is.

[Brant Gaede]

That all depends on what the definition of "sure" is. Observation per se is vastly over-rated. Your tentativeness goes way beyond legitimate scientific tentativeness and would drape us in paralyzing ignorance even in the presence of workable knowledge.

--Brant

I'm not being tentative at all - there can be no science or "things" without an observer. Case closed.

So, you do have an absolutist philosophy. What's the utility? And the "observer" has to do more than "observe" to get science. This seems awfully passive if he doesn't. To me, the utility of your philosophy is a semantical pretzel that is only an epistemological cat chasing its own tail on a closed course. Did you know that essentially you are merely restating the axioms at the base of Objectivism, but in a contradictory way? You see, observers come and go but things remain things. If not, there would be gross discontinuities and the insane, idiotic, stupid observer would be the equal of Newton and I could drive just as safely blindfolded as not. You might as well say there can be no observer without things, ignoring the observer's own thingness. Thus: things observe things or things create things through observation. Something like all those bad Carlos Castenada books. Science is testable, semantics and most philosophy is not. Science uses logic, reason, the scientific method. This is Objectivism, too. It is not semantical unless you are claiming semantical is Objectivism. Reality generally is independent of any observer. The galaxy is more than what is in out heads, collectively or individually, unless we be gods or God. To extrapolate that reality is a different thing than things in the most basic sense can't be demonstrated. You are actually positing the plasticity of reality ("things"), which means its arbitrariness with your own brand of absolutism. If I am incoherent to you that's only you observing. It's not my observation that I am incoherent.

--Brant

Edited November 29, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am still reading on QM.

As given in the video explanations, when the data collectors were turned on to detect the photons, the data was stored and the photons hit some kind of photographic paper on the far chamber wall. All this happened at one time (say the night before, since the photons were fed slowly one by one). At another later time (say the next day) if the data was deleted before the person looked at the photographic paper, what was on the paper was one way (a particle-like pattern). If the data was kept in storage, when the person looked at the photographic paper, the result was the other way (a wave-like pattern).

Since, as Dragonfly stated, there were many details left out, I need to understand which ones lead this in another direction. For the time being, this is how I have understood the double slit experiment and the videos were very clear about it.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

I am still reading on QM.

As given in the video explanations, when the data collectors were turned on to detect the photons, the data was stored and the photons hit some kind of photographic paper on the far chamber wall. All this happened at one time (say the night before, since the photons were fed slowly one by one). At another later time (say the next day) if the data was deleted before the person looked at the photographic paper, what was on the paper was one way (a particle-like pattern). If the data was kept in storage, when the person looked at the photographic paper, the result was the other way (a wave-like pattern).

Since, as Dragonfly stated, there were many details left out, I need to understand which ones lead this in another direction. For the time being, this is how I have understood the double slit experiment and the videos were very clear about it.

Michael

I'm not sure what you mean by "All this happened at one time "

In essence, the challenge to our classical notions comes from the fact that it seems that the electron must somehow pass through both slits in order to interfere with itself because each photon is fed though one at a time.

Basically when you study classical particle dynamics, and classical wave dynamics, the observations seem not to make sense. There's no easy way for us (ok me at least) to groc an entity that acts like this. I think because I have indeed done quite a bit of this type of classical analysis both in my education and in industry (I programmed x-ray diffractometers for a few years), QM seems so darned freaky. I just get frustrated because my math is rusty and it seems to prevent deeper understanding.

But as for the data issue, I too am a bit confused and would love it someone could elaborate a bit.

[tjohnson]

So, you do have an absolutist philosophy. What's the utility?

For the most part GS is not absolutistic but there are 2 "negative" premises which are undeniable.

1. The word is not the thing it represents

2. There is no such thing as an object in perfect isolation

It is important to realize that because they are stated in a negative fashion the onus is on you (or anyone else) to deny them you must provide a word which IS the thing or an object in complete isolation. This part of GS is a no brainer, it's what follows from these premises that is sometimes hard to understand.

[Brant Gaede]

So, you do have an absolutist philosophy. What's the utility?

For the most part GS is not absolutistic but there are 2 "negative" premises which are undeniable.

1. The word is not the thing it represents

2. There is no such thing as an object in perfect isolation

It is important to realize that because they are stated in a negative fashion the onus is on you (or anyone else) to deny them you must provide a word which IS the thing or an object in complete isolation. This part of GS is a no brainer, it's what follows from these premises that is sometimes hard to understand.

1. I agree

2. I agree

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not sure what you mean by "All this happened at one time "

Bob,

In that context, I meant something like "phase" or "stage." I probably should have used one of those words instead of "time."

To be clear, I meant that the automatic part of the experiment (feeding photons) happened in the first stage. In the second stage, the scientist kept or deleted the data, then looked at the photographic paper. That's when the weird part is recorded.

The first stage was usually all night long and the second stage was usually the following morning or during the day.

Michael

[C. Jordan]

Ba'al Chatzaf raised a good question: did the Kosmos exist before someone was around to observe it? We can reasonably assume so. There is objective evidence to suggest so. But it is impossible to empirically know.

So we should say instead: "We believe the Universe is xx billion years old..." followed by the evidence which supports it.

To Brant: I also presume that there is an objective reality which (by definition) exists independently of our opinions. Hence my Philip Dick quotation: reality by definition does not change with our beliefs. But how do I know this? Because I observe that reality does not change with my beliefs.

I don't say that reality will cease to exist if no one is around to observe it. Only that we cannot know what happens when no one is around to observe it; and that if no one actually were around to observe reality, then reality would have no meaning and no value.

And I agree with both of General Semanticist's points. His second point ("There is no such thing as an object in perfect isolation") is in fact my entire argument, but more elegantly phrased. That's the sort of quotation I wish I'd had first.

As to his first comment ("The word is not the thing it represents") that would actually require a new thread. I'm willing. But for now I'll make 2 points:

(1) This is the idea behind "The map is not the territory."

(2) This leads to reifying, a mistake that Ayn Rand's more cultish followers are known for making.

[C. Jordan]

One final thought: I've argued that empirical knowledge implies an observer. But the reverse is equally true.

To be an observer implies that there is an objective reality which one observes. Otherwise the idea "observer" is meaningless.

[BaalChatzaf]

For the most part GS is not absolutistic but there are 2 "negative" premises which are undeniable.

1. The word is not the thing it represents

2. There is no such thing as an object in perfect isolation

Item 2 is interesting. I is something that is true, but not self evident or a priori true. We learn that gravitation has unbounded reach and conclude all matter interacts gravitationally. Hence total isolation is not possible (given gravitation). Number 2 is logically deniable in the sense that there could be a cosmos with only one object. I.E. a cosmos with one object violates no principle of logic. However the cosmos we live in has many more than one objects and they are all gravitationally interacting.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Item 2 is interesting. I is something that is true, but not self evident or a priori true. We learn that gravitation has unbounded reach and conclude all matter interacts gravitationally. Hence total isolation is not possible (given gravitation). Number 2 is logically deniable in the sense that there could be a cosmos with only one object. I.E. a cosmos with one object violates no principle of logic. However the cosmos we live in has many more than one objects and they are all gravitationally interacting.

Ba'al Chatzaf

True, but I suppose I could argue that there are two objects in your example, the cosmos and the one object in it. Anyway, the other part of the premise states that, at the very least, there must be an observer as well as the object because to speak about objects implies an observer. So I guess we could say that objects are a joint phenomenon that occurs with an observer and something to observe.

[BaalChatzaf]

True, but I suppose I could argue that there are two objects in your example, the cosmos and the one object in it. Anyway, the other part of the premise states that, at the very least, there must be an observer as well as the object because to speak about objects implies an observer. So I guess we could say that objects are a joint phenomenon that occurs with an observer and something to observe.

In the extreme case the one object would BE the cosmos. Having many separate and interacting objects is a contingent fact about the cosmos. It happens to be the case. Think of the un-banged Big Bang. Just a singularity and no more.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

In the extreme case the one object would BE the cosmos. Having many separate and interacting objects is a contingent fact about the cosmos. It happens to be the case. Think of the un-banged Big Bang. Just a singularity and no more.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, we can imagine an object in perfection isolation but even to do that we need an imaginer and as you say, the "real" universe is strictly interconnected at any rate.

[C. Jordan]

A universe that is nothing but singularity...let us assume that is possible.

If so, and if we accept my earlier arguments, then such a universe (in perfect isolation) would have no meaning, and no value.

We could never observe such a universe, because that would contradict the definition of a universe that is all singularity, which would exclude by definition the presence of ourselves. From that, it follows that we'll never have to worry about such a situation.

Thank God.

[tjohnson]

Thank the singularity!

[syrakusos]

I read the original essay here several times and then wrote my own based on it. Of course, I credit him for that in the text and in the bibliography.

One thing is that I googled for real life emergencies to understand them better. This has special application for my profession. This coming Winter 2008 semester I have one class in Emergency Management and another in Terrorism. Also, over Thanksgiving, I earned a certificate from FEMA in Emergency Management Fundamentals. So, for me, these "lifeboat situations" are more than philosophical amusements.

You can google "cruise ship lifeboat" and find links. You get even scarier stories with "nightclub fire." As I point out in the article -- and thanks, once more, Stuart -- you also get results for "Martian invasion." The essential distinguishing characteristic, of course is that cruise ship lifeboats and nightclub fires are real.

The “lifeboat challenge” is intended to test the limits of egoism. Altruists fear that in an emergency, the self-interested course of action is to kill everyone around you and seize all the assets you need. Some radical libertarians seek to invalidate the concept of natural rights by inventing scenarios in which various rights (to life, trial by jury, the pursuit of happiness) are in supposed conflict. Fortunately, reality operates differently in the physical world than it does in their minds.

“What would you do if…” ignores the context of how you came to be in this situation. If you read the actual experiences of real people caught in untenable situations, you will see that most (if not all) can be resolved to what aviators call “an accident chain.” Ultimately, no matter where you are or what you are doing, you have to take responsibility not just for being there, but how you got there, as well how you are going to get out.

Morality is more than just your conduct among other people. As Ayn Rand pointed out, it is alone on a deserted island that you need morality most. Morality defines your actions and those choices must ensure your survival. If you are shipwrecked with a case of rum, spending your time drunk would be contrary to your own best interests. Though you probably would not be bothered much by the fact, your time would be short. On the other hand, if you stay sober and alert, you stand a much better chance of survival. At root, every choice is a moral choice. Some (chocolate or vanilla) are trivial. Others (which career; whom for spouse) are deeply consequential. What you do when the ship you are on strikes an iceberg depends on your morality.

Edited December 24, 2007 by Michael E. Marotta