An observer can be taken to be that which makes a representation from the received information, so the same for both scales. However at the quantum scale there is interaction with what is observed - At the quantum scale there is provocation or a trial of some kind whereby the system is made to respond and that response is what is detected and made into the representation. There is no interaction with astronomical objects when they are observed via the processing of received em information. At that large scale the state of motion affects what em information is received to be formed into the representation that is produced. It is a one way relationship of information receipt leading to the product.

What would agreement of observation at the different scales entail, how does that word apply?

Dear Dr. Foster,

Although it might appear to be far-fetched to all of you, I am convinced that all of the Popes who have ever lived have been wrong about their complex contention that the universe was created piecemeal by an invisible God. I know it must appear absurd to all of you, but I can prove that all of the physicists presently alive are completely wrong about their incomprehensible assertion that according to a space dot com article published online: "Due to a random fluctuation in a completely empty void, a universe exploded into existence. Something the size of a subatomic particle inflated to unimaginably huge size in a fraction of a second, driven apart by negative-pressure vacuum energy. Scientists called this (complicated) theory for the origin of the universe the Big Bang."

Physicists, only Nature could produce the simplest reality. The real visible Universe must consist only of a unified infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Quote,""Quantum theory can tell us at the end what we can say and what we cannot about the universe," says Mancini." I don't know why that authority should be given specifically to quantum theory. It seems that it is indicating a flaw in the reductionist ideal-that the closer we look the nearer we get to the truth of the matter. Whereas the closer we look the harder it is not to disturb what we are looking at, and incorporating that into a model. It does show that our models are built from information and that information is not immutable. The quantum experiment is about producing information that can be detected whereas the astronomical observation is about receiving information long after production by nature.

By not immutable I meant what information is brought into existence depends upon what is done in the quantum experiment; and for macroscopic observation the existing information is subject to what happens to it between emission and receipt.

Quote, "Fuentes is asking, is there a way to make these two ways of observing agree?" Can anyone explain to me what "agree" means when the kinds of observation are fundamentally different. What would agreement "look" like? What are they actually looking for ?

Quote "Who is in charge, the observers, or the observed? That, in a nutshell, is the question ....." In charge of what?

If it means in charge of the representation that is formed from the information, the observer has some responsibility as something must be done with the information for anything to be known. Yet the source is also responsible for what the information is, and that will have bearing on the representation formed from it.

I don't understand what is meant by "in charge" in the question.

Dear Georgina,

Every creature on earth has eyes. Fleas definitely have eyes, and in all probably, so do bacterium. The only visible phenomena that can ever possibly be seen by any operational eye am infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe, if you wish to back up your idea with facts do some research and get your facts right at the very least.

Quote "Who is in charge, the observers, or the observed? That, in a nutshell, is the question ....." It seems to me the answer to that depends upon the connotation given to "in charge".

A chef might be considered to be in charge of producing a delicious meal. The chef however might say that the ingredients are in charge because, in his opinion, they determine what kinds of dish can be made and their quality.

Notions of time are indeed quite different between classical gravity and quantum charge and it is great to see such work funded. Unfortunately, classical observers use the single time dimension of an atomic clock in their time measurements while quantum observers use two time dimensions in their time measurements; both atomic time as well as phase decay time.

Now the universe mass is subject to action and that action has both time dimensions. Thus far, science has ignored phase decay time for gravity since quantum phase decay and the second time dimension play no roles in relativity.

Two identical high precision single atom clocks started in phase eventually dephase from each other due to quantum phase noise. That dephasing rate can be due to many complicated factors...but there is an intrinsic dephasing rate of 0.26 ppb/yr for a single atom clock. This dephasing rate shows up in the decay of millisecond pulsars, the decay of earth's rotation, and the decay of the IPK mass standard.

This new work will be successful if it uses real measurements to define phase decay as the very important second time dimension. Mainstream science does not yet recognize an intrinsic phase decay time for the universe that is actually different from atomic time even though science measures quantum phase decay.

An absolute quantum phase decay time is the key to quantum gravity...

    Dear Georgina,

    The fact that only visible surface can be seen by an eye is self-evident. Reality is self-evident. Empty, speculation about abstract observers observing abstract phenomena is utter codswallop.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Dear Steve,

    The simplest natural construction of infinite surface requires no silly notions about finite time, or any unnatural flawed human speculation about finite mathematics either.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    1. Free Will

    Quantum "random" outcomes are random or indeterminate from the point of view of an observer [1]: but are they random from the point of view of the observed thing [1]?

    I contend that outcomes are not random from the point of view of the observed thing: the outcomes are only random from the point of view of the observer of the thing:

    Clearly the observed thing is not 100% subject to the laws-of-nature [2], because not all variable numeric values representing the outcomes are 100% deterministically predictable by law-of-nature equations. But if the observed thing is subject to "random" numeric values, then the outcome will look random to both the observer and the observed.

    Only if the observed thing has itself created new information, which changes what we would represent as variable numeric values representing the outcome, will the outcome appear to be not random from the point of view of the observed thing.

    2. Consciousness/ Subjective Experience

    What is an "observer"?

    If the "observer" is one of several fundamental aspects of reality, then all of reality derived from the fundamentals will be understandable in terms of the fundamental aspects, but the "observer" and the other fundamental aspects will not be understandable in terms of its derivative reality.

    I contend that the "observer" is one of the fundamental aspects of reality.

    1. Multicellular living things including people, single cell living things, molecules, atoms, particles.

    2. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_nature , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science .

      Joe,

      it doesn't matter what the abstract observer is, it could be a mathematical point or a term standing for the processing of an equation into an output. The abstract observer represents the acquisition of information. That's what an observer real or abstract does. Beyond that the information must be processed as that is how something is known from the information. Sight is the product of processing received information. The product is a representation or construct it is not the external material reality, the source of the information. Convection currents in air can be used to demonstrate that as they can affect the distribution of the information prior to receipt. That is not speculation.

      Dear Georgina,

      It is essential to know where the observer is in order to determine the veracity of that which is being observed. It is physically impossible for a real observer to observe "information." I know it might seem a bit unfair to you, but Nature must have furnished the simplest visible physical eternal construct obtainable. If you have your eyes open right now, you will only be able to see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed one- dimensional flattish looking varied colored surface.. And so will every open eye at any time.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Dear Lorraine,

      All humanly contrived complex, abstract concepts, such as the ones concerning "free-will, and the meaning of meaning are nothing more than pretentiously provided codswallop. Nature has freely constructed the simplest of visible physical appearance Only infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light has ever eternally existed.

      Joe Fisher, Realist.

      Joe, where the observer is and the relative state of motion of observer and information source/s (object/s) affects what information is received, when, and so what information can be processed into the product. The information is not directly experienced but the product is experienced. The information is analysed, (for example lines are identified), and there is association with knowledge from prior experience or learning that allows object recognition and activation of relevant memories. By information, as we are talking about sight, I mean the frequency and intensity of em radiation. Surfaces do emit/reflect em radiation but because we (indirectly) see those surfaces via the em radiation received and processed it does not mean that only surfaces exist externally. Sonar, x ray and translucent and transparent objects let us know that there is more than just surface. As your model relies upon the eye, it would be good for you to research how the eye functions and vision occurs. Even with functioning eyes a person can be blind, as the optic nerve and parts of the brain are also involved in sight. Interestingly there is also something called blindsight. With that condition a person has a functioning eyes and optic nerve but specific damage to the visual cortex. Despite having visual knowledge they lack conscious awareness of seeing.

      Dear Georgina,

      Real eyes can only see real surface. Your phantasmagorical observers cannot physically have any capability for seeing. Please repeat to yourself: It does not matter where a real eye is. A real eye will only ever see real surface. As there is only one infinite dimension, no finite object could possibly be in any sort of finite motion. Newton was wrong about finite motion and Einstein was wrong about finite relative motion.

      Joe Fisher, Realist