To Be or Not to Be? But is that really the Question? by Jason W Steinmetz

Jason Steinmetz

You wrote: "Just for fun, what are your thought about a reality in which there are no observers? Do you think such a thing is possible?"

To answer this question the term "observer" must be defined and that is a very "hard problem." I think Ian Durham said it best in the quote that I chose to reproduce in my comments on his essay: "Any attempt to comprehend it must necessarily depend on the fact that we are a part of it. Indeed the very act of comprehension is itself a part of it and is thus shaped by it."

We are just as much an intrinsic part of "The World" as anything else in it. And thus, no, I do not think a world without "observers" is possible. Such a world is nothing more than a mere fantasy, which is worse than a hypothetical. "The ideal of the detached observer" is the product of a dying Aeon.

You wrote: "And second, do you think the 3 Uns remain the same for any possible observer?"

And again you pose such an intricate and difficult question so innocently. To answer this question "the 3 Uns" must be separated. I will list them in order of difficulty.

Uncomputability

What is computable is definable. It is currently defined by Church's Thesis. Although the definition may be expanded by innovations yet to be discovered, there will always be a (working) definition and thus what can and cannot be computed within whatever model of computation that is currently being employed is (provisionally) absolute. (Note: I do not think quantum computation will ultimately be such an innovation.)

Undecidability

What is decidable is similar to what is computable, however, since decidability does not explicitly dictate a means by which to decide, the concept insinuates something resembling Truth in the sense of being a fact of reality. But any means by which to decide what is "impossible" must begin by postulating what is "absolutely possible." We "observers" always create those boundaries in an attempt to comprehend reality, but history is replete with examples of such boundaries being breached. This is why I included the brief discussion of the paradox of Absolute Truth in my essay. Can we ever truly be certain that we have reached an absolute boundary; one that will never be breached?

Unpredictability

As I eluded to my essay, I think the concept of predictability unavoidably leads into the "nebulous philosophical concepts" of determinism, free will and randomness. On a deeper level, I think the concept of predictability is inextricably intertwined with expectation. As a result, unpredictability is fundamentally intertwined with "observers" and thus it is certainly not "the same for any possible observer".

In other words, "remove observers from the equation" and the question becomes a lot simpler; so simple that it is possibly not even interesting (to any observer). Include the observer and the question quickly becomes nigh intractable.

My comments on your essay might make this more comprehensible. Or maybe just more confusing...

Lachlan Cresswell

Thanks for your comments, Jason.

I'm not sure where to start in replying. I met a philosopher in my dog walking park a couple of days ago and he was trying to convince me that subjective reality is all there is, that everything I see and touch and do is all a projection of my mind. Well I must have a very complicated mind, inventing this essay competition and a huge variety of essays to comment on.

When I say object reality I am of course framing it in my mind in the context of my theories, so it is biased of course. Yet in my mind obect reality is a collection of aether particles and matter particles doing their dance according to the force laws that bind them. Other's objective realities will depend on the ontology they subscribe to. But of course if we call ourselves scientists then we are trying to remove subjectivity and superstition and magic by means of the scientific method. I do not think we have completed the mission because some of the adherents of quantum field theories believe that QT is object reality!

The 3 un's seem to have arisen out of the creations of skuld organisms, and once created become part of object reality, hence using the subjective/objective dichotomy is wrong as you suggest.

Block Universe eternalists do not regard the future as open, and in a narrower sense, those believing in determinism also have a closed future in the sense of although it is not yet written it is determinable (by LaPlace's demon). I am suggesting free will maintains a truly open future. TOO FAR? well maybe but that the luxury we have been provided with this forum.

I do not like collapsing wavefunctions, nor many worlds peeling off at vast rates. Maybe Bohm is the nearest to my quantum perspective, although tere are many chapters still to be written on this topic.

In responding to another post I came across the "Andromeda Paradox' of Penrose. I applied my concept of time to it and nicely resolved/removed the paradox. I guess that is what we want from a theory - to get rid of paradoxes (and meet all the criteria of the scientific method).

I suspect I will be long dead before any of my theories are accepted. (I think someone famous proposed a law about that)

Cheers

Lockie

Jason Steinmetz

I do not know if you interpreted my comments as suggesting that I supported the idea that "subjective reality is all there is," but I most certainly do not as My comments on Stefan Weckbach's essay attest. I am only implying that what is considered "objective" is permeated by subjectivity and what is considered "subjective" is conditioned by objectivity and thus the objective/subjective dichotomy is intrinsically flawed because the dichotomy represents a distinction without a clear, substantial or meaningful difference. In other words, these two aspects of reality cannot be clearly segregated.

I do not think what I am saying is too dissimilar from your idea of "presentism." Subjective and objective "are presently only constructs of biological systems, from viruses to humans, and only exist as symbolic maps (image realities) of a variety of types, in the "Now"." Of course, to make this make (more) sense within the context of subject and object your "Now" should probably be replaced by "Reality" (i.e., What Is).

I should clarify something. You wrote: "Objective reality is what it is." To which I responded "Obviously". I would like to take that back. Reality is what it is. Characterizing reality as "objective" is the (unjustified) prejudice of skuld entities. I am not saying what is often called "objective reality" isn't obviously real. I am simply saying that it cannot be characterized as wholly "objective."

With respect to going "too far," I tried to adhere strictly to what has been proven and to say as little as possible about philosophical concepts. Free will is obviously a philosophical concept. Is it going to far? It all depends on where the line is drawn. With respect to undecidability and uncomputability I don't see how free will could possibly be relevant. With respect to unpredictability I can certainly see how it is relevant, which is why I avoided unpredictability for the most part in my essay and which is also why I may not have gone far enough.

C'est La Vie.

And cheers to you as well.

« Previous Page