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

      No Joe, sight is mediated by em radiation, without receipt of em radiation there is no seeing what appears to be the external reality. That is how vision functions. Your idea does not fit with basic facts of biology, optics and mathematics and so I am not interested in it.

      Actually the simplest natural construction of reality requires no silly notions of space and time or any unnatural flawed human speculation about finite math either. The only requirement is for matter and action...

      Dear Georgina,

      Truth is always self-evident. Lies always need details. The more details that are provided, the bigger are the lies that are being revealed. A real eye can simply only ever see surface, because only infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light has ever existed. Complex finite ideas about finite abstract "sight" that is supposedly finitely "mediated" by finite invisible "em" "radiation" expressed on a surface are amusingly interesting, but utterly unrealistic. Please do not argue with me. Please join me in converting the misguided population into accepting the simple truth about our real visible Universe..

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Joe, you use the word "illuminated". As you have included it you must consider it an important fact. What does "illuminated by light" mean to you? How is it that a surface can be seen when illuminated but not in complete darkness?

      You almost have it Steve. But please remember it am infinite surface, not finite "matter."

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      • [deleted]

      Dear Georgina,

      Simplicity cannot be simplified.. There am only one singular unified infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. This is what you seem to fail to understand: you can create a seeming condition of finite "darkness' by building a finitely sized "darkroom," But such activity is unnatural, and confounds all rational understanding of the simple nature of the real Universe entirely.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Total Absence of light is rare, however I have been inside a natural cave system where there was no light at all. Yet it still had cave wall surfaces, un-seeable until torches were put on again. The tour guide had told us to turn them off so that we could experience the rare complete darkness, that did not resolve into some night vision sight but remained completely dark after minutes of waiting.