Funkaloyd writes:
It seems to me that in order for a universe to exist, it must at some stage consist of at least two objects which are capable of affecting each other, not necessarily anything more.
That's a very interesting notion, Funkaloyd. It reminds me of a thought I had a long time ago and that's been bothering me ever since: suppose there is only one indivisible thing in the universe. There's nothing else it can bump into, receive reflected light from (in fact, there is no light), or have any other interaction with. I was wondering, in that situation, could the thing be said to exist? In other words, what is the nature of existence? What does 'to exist' mean? Does a thing that has no interaction whatsoever 'exist'?
I think it is in this vein that the notion of an 'observer' should be seen. Many people take the observer often mentioned in quantum-theoritical explanations as a conscious entity. The word 'observer' itself is part of the problem, I think. In everyday human language, an 'observer' always means a conscious person. But in quantum theory, an observer doesn't need to be a person; it can be anything with which an interaction is possible. The interaction
is the 'observation'.
If a tree falls in the forest, and there is nobody around to hear it, then it doesn't make a sound. But if there is air around, then it does produce vibrations and turbulence. And if there are leaves and dust on the ground, the leaves and dust will fly around. There may not be sound when the tree falls - on account of the absence of a sound-observer - but there
is interaction with things that
are around. The falling tree
is 'observed'.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 21-Nov-2005 07:44 AM
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins
™ Version 4.2
