@Metal-Brain
Hey assshole, an observation does not have to mean a human saw it, it could be a reading on a voltmeter not seen for weeks if it was in a remote location like temperatures of deep waters of the Atlantic ocean just as an example.
You have had a piss poor education, and it shows every time you post.
@sonhouse
The Observer Effect: Seeing Is Changing
https://fs.blog/observer-effect/
Tell that to the author of this blog. People need reminding that observe does not mean see.
@shavixmir saidThe Observer Effect: Seeing Is Changing
Why do you disagree with the entire scientific community and dictionaries?
I already posted the definition of observe from the dictionary. In science it means something completely different than just using your eyes.
You are generally stuck down a rabbit hole and, alas, once again you seem to be stuck down one with your arse sticking out, just waiting to use as a bicycle rack.
https://fs.blog/observer-effect/
Then why do blogs like this exist? Some people need to be told observe does not always mean "see" because some people assume observe means seeing with your eyes.
@Ponderable saidYes. Some people do not know that though. Here is an example:
Right! Optical observation is just one way to observe.
However I am not pedantic on words or expressions. An astronomer who tells me that the sun rises is not a fool (she knowns very well, that the earth turns).
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature.”
https://scienceandnonduality.com/article/do-quantum-phenomena-require-conscious-observers/
Shawn Radcliff clearly does not know the observer is not seeing with eyes to observe. The mind has nothing to do with it. Here is another excerpt from the link:
With the double-slit experiment, “the output of the detectors only becomes known when it is consciously observed by a person,” writes Kastrup. Extending this to all of reality, he argues that a “transpersonal mind” underlies the material world.
Why is Kastrup making the false assumption that a conscious mind is required to get an interaction between a photon and an electron? The output of the detectors only becomes known after that interaction and has nothing to do with the conscious mind. Right?
Why do people believe in junk science like that? You could program a robot to read the instruments and get the same result. A human mind is not required.
@Metal-Brain saidIt’s general knowledge.
The Observer Effect: Seeing Is Changing
https://fs.blog/observer-effect/
Then why do blogs like this exist? Some people need to be told observe does not always mean "see" because some people assume observe means seeing with your eyes.
Or a quick peek at a dictionary.
@shavixmir
Yes. Some people do not know that though. Here is an example:
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature.”
https://scienceandnonduality.com/article/do-quantum-phenomena-require-conscious-observers/
A scientist named Bernardo Kastrup does not know the observer is not seeing with eyes to observe. The mind has nothing to do with it. Here is another excerpt from the link:
With the double-slit experiment, “the output of the detectors only becomes known when it is consciously observed by a person,” writes Kastrup. Extending this to all of reality, he argues that a “transpersonal mind” underlies the material world.
Why is Kastrup making the false assumption that a conscious mind is required to get an interaction between a photon and an electron? The output of the detectors only becomes known after that interaction and has nothing to do with the conscious mind. Right?
Why do some scientists believe in junk science like that? You could program a robot to read the instruments and get the same result. A human mind is not required.
@Metal-Brain saidThe role of the mind is interpretation.
@shavixmir
Yes. Some people do not know that though. Here is an example:
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature.”
https://scienceandnonduality.com/article/do-quantu ...[text shortened]... could program a robot to read the instruments and get the same result. A human mind is not required.
And stop spamming the thread!
You don't need the same post more than once.
@sonhouse
Why is Kastrup making the false assumption that a conscious mind is required to get an interaction between a photon and an electron? The output of the detectors only becomes known after that interaction and has nothing to do with the conscious mind.
Why do some scientists believe in junk science like that? You could program a robot to read the instruments and get the same result. A human mind is not required.
Some scientists are idiots. Kastrup is one of those idiots.
That is why people need reminding that observe is a misnomer and is not seeing with the human eye.
@Metal-Brain
What role, you know, the role you take being a professional troll. BTW we already know about observations, and the world of science has known about that for fuuking DECADES.
YOU are the one in need of an education, but you clearly think you are the most intelligent being on the planet and get to deride the entire world of science.
That kind of derision is what got a REAL genius, William Sidis in trouble even though his IQ clocked in at some 300, getting his MD at age of ten but his insufferable arrogance cost him his career.
He got very close to formalizing gravitational lensing but he was too busy being arrogant.
HE had an excuse, being a REAL bonified genius, but YOU?
About as stupid as they come and you THINK you are up there with Newton, Einstein, Terrance Tao or William Sidis.
@Metal-Brain saidI don’t know.
@shavixmir
Yes. Some people do not know that though. Here is an example:
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature.”
https://scienceandnonduality.com/article/do-quantu ...[text shortened]... could program a robot to read the instruments and get the same result. A human mind is not required.
But when we tell you, you seem to find it very hard to believe. Like what would be our gain in lying about how scientists and researchers use the term observe?
None.