2

Before you read this and write it off as a absurd contradicting paradoxical juxtaposition. assume that a observable contradiction is a phenomenon in of itself. Are some things ameasurable?

Anything Schrodinger owns or is involved with isnt a dead end in understanding but a bigger building block of understanding an even bigger picture

(i) the system actually observed; (ii) the measuring instrument; and (in) the actual observer. He argues that during a measurement the actual observer gets a subjective perception of what is going on that has a non-physical nature, which distinguishes it from the observed object and the measuring instrument. However, he holds on to psycho-physical parallelism as a scientific principle, which he interprets such that there exists a physical correlate to any extra-physical process of the subjective experience. So in every case where we have a subjective perception we must divide the world into the observed system and the observer. But where the division takes place is partly arbitrary.

Improve this question
3
  • First off a rather sobering thought - it may not matter whether Einstein or a three-toed sloth is the observer. Second, I see an attempt to talk of subjectivity with objectivity - is subjectivity generic that we may generalize it? If no then, I find it implausible to think that subjectivity that is unique to every individual is causally relevant.
    – Agent Smith
    Jan 23 at 9:29
  • I will write this off as poorly explained and presumably poorly understood. To make it clearer what you are talking about, include the important background, as many concrete examples as you can, and remove the jargon words.
    – Daron
    Jan 23 at 13:07
  • There are two questions here, one in the title and one in the first paragraph. But it is not obvious what they have to do with each other and what they have to do with the rest of the body text.
    – Daron
    Jan 23 at 13:08

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4

I think what you mean is that there is a difference between how we perceive reality and how it actually is.

The most important and unbreachable dividing line is in your head. There are also dividing lines between detecting devices and the phenomena they detect, but those are a different sort from the dividing line in your head.

Take your perception of the yellowness of a flower, for example. We know that correlates with the existence of electromagnetic effects with a given frequency, but the colour you see in your mind is a mental invention, and the flower certainly is not yellow in that sense- it is simply reflecting light of a certain wavelength that your brain interprets as yellow.

Likewise, when we hear that the detectors at CERN have identified a variety of fundamental particles, we form a mental image of what a particle is. We might imagine it as an indivisible point-like spot of matter, but really we have no idea. Indeed, it is meaningless to ask what such a particle 'looks like', since it cannot be seen.

What matters is only whether our mental conceptions of reality are a faithful guide to it.

Improve this answer
6
  • What do you think a particle is, mathematically? Is it just a geometric point?
    – Agent Smith
    Jan 23 at 9:25
  • 3
    @AgentSmith when you say 'is mathematically' you are in danger of confusing the issue. A particle isn't mathematical. A particle can be modelled mathematically in many different ways. In statistical mechanics, for example, yes, it is usual to model a particle as being a point in space.
    – Marco Ocram
    Jan 23 at 10:52
  • danke, that's interesting. I guess what a particle is depends on what we're interested in. The earth, for example, is a point mass in Newton's theory of gravity, but is a habitable planet in astrobiology.
    – Agent Smith
    Jan 23 at 12:25
  • @AgentSmith Just so!
    – Marco Ocram
    Jan 23 at 13:39
  • 2
    @AgentSmith that's easy - for the hydrogen atom, we have a nice wave function, established in all its full glory after a lengthy and hard QM class. Best picture we have of that thing. And lo and behold, my prof then quit and threw his arms up in the air telling us that would be the last closed form analytic solution we would see for any particle... all the others are way too complex... and we were only on the very first box of the periodic table... hahaha
    – Frank
    Jan 23 at 16:45
0

A measure is a representation of a specific feature of any phonomenon. What ever you measure it would be difference with the real value of the objet measured and the measure and someway we cant explain. So, yes it will always have some features we wont be able to explain perfectly due to this measure difference.

Improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .