The Observer Effect…God?

I’ve not read all your blog posts, rounaqb, but this one just has to be one of your best ever! And here’s my motivation for saying so:

1) You start by describing the phenomenon called “the observer effect”

1.a) You define it as “Observation changes reality”.

1.b) You even give us a textbook definition of the phenomenon: “In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed.

Very good!

2) For those wanting deeper information I can recommend this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest .

2.a) In that Wikipedia article you can read this (I quote): Albert Einstein is reported to have asked his fellow physicist and friend Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, whether he realistically believed that ‘the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it.’ To this Bohr replied that however hard he (Einstein) may try, he would not be able to prove that it does, thus giving the entire riddle the status of a kind of an infallible conjecture—one that cannot be either proved or disproved.

2.b) And you can read this (another quote from the article): The anthropic principle suggests that the observer, just in its existence, may impose on the reality observed. However, most people, as well as scientists, assume that the observer doesn’t change whether the tree-fall causes a sound or not, but this is an impossible claim to prove. However, many scientists would argue as follows, “A truly unobserved event is one which realises no effect (imparts no information) on any other (where ‘other’ might be e.g., human, sound-recorder or rock), it therefore can have no legacy in the present (or ongoing) wider physical universe. […]

2.c) The British philosopher of science Roy Bhaskar, credited with developing critical realism has argued, in apparent reference to this riddle, that: If men ceased to exist sound would continue to travel and heavy bodies to fall to the earth in exactly the same way, though ex hypothesi there would be no-one to know it.

End of quotes.

I would say that you summarize all this very well in your blog post, rounaqb!

3) Some believers in the concept of a Cosmic Intelligence (or Divine Being) may object and call the given explanations a misrepresenting simplification of the matter.

They seem to mean that the implications of the “observer effect’ are much more profound than we humans are able to understand.

3.a) According to such New-Age-ish believers, the “observer effect”, if true, must be considered to mean that before something can manifest in the physical universe it has to become observed by someone ore something.

3.b) A corollary of that statement could be as follows: Presumably observation cannot occur without the pre-existence of some sort of consciousness to do the observing.

3.c) That is, the “observer effect” seems to imply that the physical Universe is the direct result of ‘consciousness’.

3.d) This notion, by the way, has a striking resemblance to perennial esoteric theory which asserts that all phenomena are the result of the consciousness of a single overriding intelligent principle, seemingly full of awareness.

3.e) This is, IMHO, just another way to refer to the Mind of God.

4) Anyhow, rounaqb, you outline the problem with the “observer effect” by breaking it down into three basic components:

4.a) First, you focus on the measurement process in itself. Claiming that it is the measurement per se, not the observer, that causes what is called the “observer effect”.

4.b) Then you claim that humans are not necessary to make a measurement. For example, it is possible for robots or computers to make measurements, and in a near future we can expect that robots and/or computers will be capable of assembling new copies of themselves. Either with or without a consciousness of their own.

4.c) Which immediately takes us to your point #3, that consciousness is an ill-defined concept.

Especially if you are looking for similarities between a consciousness and an eternal soul. Or expressed in a simpified way: From where does the robot, or the computer, get its eternal soul? Did the Divine Being (or Cosmic Intelligence) create also robots or computers “in imaginem Sui” (In Its image)?

5) I can also recommend you, rounaqb, and all who are interested in this subject, to have a look at what is written here on this site: http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1228 .

It’s a Q&A site. The answers given to the questions posed about the “observer effect” – and its possible consequences – complement your eminent blog post very well.

6) Finally, I want to thank you, rounaqb, for taking your time to address this interesting question of what the “observer effect” really is and what it means – and doesn’t mean.

You did an excellent job! Now let us both wait for the God believers to have their say.

Refuting God

I remember the time when I was a total Cosmology geek, I read a joke where he says, “Oh Jenny, I love you and only you.” and she replies, “But, in a quantum world, how can you be sure?”

Really, this is kinda the situation now. One often hears the creepy statements like “Observation changes reality” or “The moon is not up there if you don’t look at it”, and the ironic part is that these statements mostly come from certain physicist’s mouth or from some famous science show, which usually have their own biases and love catching phrases and thus use certain strawmans to state opinions as facts. I cannot dream of claiming that I am somehow unbiased and authentic in my practices, but I hope to make a reasonable case for my own bias of scientific skepticism in this article. I shall also clear that this is…

View original post 976 more words

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “The Observer Effect…God?

  1. khendradm

    Thought-provoking entry.

    From empirical observation, human consciousness is not possible without an active human brain (one of many reasons I am interested in neuroscience – if we want to understand humanity, we should understand as much as possible about how our brains work). I have often told fellow theistic friends that the human brain is the most reasonable explanation for a “soul.” Whether or not a “soul” is separate from a “spirit,” in the Abrahamic tradition, is another thorny question – is the “spirit” an abstract, undefinable essence that goes to God after death, or is the human brain/”soul” remade by God in another realm?

    Whatever the case, again, human consciousness is not possible without an active human brain. As for the “observer effect,” I have always hated thinking like “if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise/sound?” I may not witness many major world events directly, but just because I wasn’t present to observe them, doesn’t mean they don’t happen. Cameras and other objective technology prove, empirically, that they do. Thus, I have every good empirical reason to believe that falling forest tree made a sound/noise even if I, personally, didn’t observe it.

  2. Many thanks for your interesting comment, Khendradm!

    Some of your thoughts about soul, spirit and consciousness are, hopefully, answered in this new blog post I just published: https://bbnewsblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/there-is-no-life-after-death-sorry/ .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s