Archive

Archive for the ‘Physics’ Category

“Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives”

October 2, 2009 Leave a comment

Interesting documentary – Mark Everett (of the Eels) discovers the life of his father’s revolutionary quantum physics: parallel universes. Hugh Everett formulated his many-worlds interpretation (“relative-state” formulation) in response to the Copenhagen interpretation put forth by Niels Bohr.

(Run time is about 52 minutes in total.)

Advertisements
Categories: Philosophy, Physics, Science

More Thoughts on Observer-relativity…

October 2, 2009 1 comment

After today’s class I started to think more about this observer-relativity. According to the definition, something is observer-relative if it would not exist if minds did not exist. Or that the something COULD still exist (I think this version is more valid). In the example, the syntactical properties of the Rocky Mountains would disappear if minds did not exist – although the physicality of the mountains could still exist, as the mountains are mind-independent.

Read more…

Afterthoughts on Observer-relativity…

October 2, 2009 Leave a comment

After today’s class I started to think more about this observer-relativity. According to the definition, something is observer-relative if it would not exist if minds did not exist. Or that the something COULD still exist (I think this version is more valid). But, what I was thinking about was: by the word “mind” are we speaking of “consciousness”? Or of the “brain”?

It has been argued that intelligence can exist independent of consciousness (as, for example, when we drive home without thinking about it). So, if for observer-relativity if we were to equate “mind” with “consciousness” we would be saying that we can still be intelligent without having a concept of semantics? (I’m assuming that consciousness is a prerequisite for semantic usage – or even syntactical awareness for that matter.) Furthermore, in the development of artificial intelligence – assuming we don’t need a conscious robot to produce intelligence – how can we expect the robot to grasp semantics? The artificial being would not have any sense of meaning – but only syntactical application.

This dualist sense of consciousness seems like a problem to me.

McDermott speaks of an objective computer, which seems to be a more monist approach to the issue of consciousness…

-RW