Banjo Paterson,
Apologies, I have just realised I was commenting on a question you actually did not ask.

Namely, the question about the dependence of the result of an observation (e.g. experiment) on the fact of being observed. This is an enigma going beyond e.g. the easy to explain two cases mentioned by david f,

(i) where the observer, or his/her tool, disturbs the observed object or
(ii) where the observed object is a group encapsulating the observer, e.g. when the group is a religious or ethic community or any group the observer is existentially or just emotionally attached to (c.f. Oliver’s understanding of theists).

This enigma concerns a more principal question - not only in the epistemological but also in the ontological sense - about the dependence of what we understand as (objective) physical reality on what we understand as (subjective) consciousness.

Of course, the classical answer is that there is no such dependence, because natural science could not work without assuming that there is a world - the source of our sensual perception - independent of our observations. However, all interpretations of quantum physics, that have to take into account experimental results with elementary particles, indicate either

(a) that there is such a dependence that we do not understand (yet?), or
(b) that we miss something essential about the very existence of the physical world as we know it. Since knowing requires consciousness, this indeed might be a permanent enigma that we shall have to live with.

Oliver,
>>"we ARE a cosmic centre" - George<<
I am not the author of this statement, but I agree that my quote from the book was too terse and out of context, thus prone to misunderstandings as you demonstrate. Besides, mixing particles with “waveforms” - I take it you meant wave functions - is a good indication to where the “enigma“ lies: any layman can “visualise“ a particle as a physical OBJECT, but not a wave function, which in principle is a mathematical construct to model the state of a physical system.

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for the introduction to what appears to be interesting reading on the so-called quantum enigma.

.

Dear Oliver,

"...experimentally,if, primatologist, Jane Goodall, observes the Great Apes from a hide, she is changing the environmental condition by her mere presence ..."

I understand it is her "mere presence" which causes the change, even if her eyes were not constantly fixed on the Great Apes.

Had she been able to observe them from a satellite, would she still be deemed to be "present" ? At what distance is one "present" or absent ?

Is it possible that you and I are also changing the environmental condition of the Great Apes by our mere presence ? If so, presumably it is reciprocal.

But then, how can there be a "change" in the respective environments of Jane Goodall and the Great Apes due to the fact that she observes them from a hide.

What difference does it make, whether she be enjoying a nice cup of tea in her, no doubt, cosy home in England while the Great Apes are swinging through the foliage in Africa, or observing them from a hide ? What is it that triggers the "change" in the interaction and mutual influence of Jane and the apes ?

Is the degree of mutual influence proportional to their proximity or remoteness, like a magnet in relation to a metal object ?

Is the influence constant irrespective of the size, weight and shape of Jane and the apes and indifferent to the matter of which each is constituted ?

.

Dear David F.,

I can't help noticing that your explanations on the meaning of science, for which I am extremely grateful, are remarkably similar to those of a highly reputed French chef who gave a conference a few years ago on French cuisine.

I suppose it's not as surprising as one may at first imagine as much of the research in both areas of enquiry are still rather artisanal in nature and largely a question of trial and error.

.

.

Dear George,

.

Thanks for taking a double dip at my question on observer dependence.

I was not planning on studying quantum physics on this forum but shall do my best to understand your message.

You refer to:

" ... all interpretations of quantum physics, that have to take into account experimental results with elementary particles ..."

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how this principle is applicable to Oliver's example of Jane and the apes.

Please forget it if it involves too much effort, I shall not lose any sleep over it.

Thanks and regards,

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

>> " ... all interpretations of quantum physics, that have to take into account experimental results with elementary particles ..."

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how this principle is applicable to Oliver's example of Jane and the apes.<<

I do not understand and can just repeat my apologies for misunderstanding your original question. I am not sure what “principle“ you are referring to. That interpretations of any physical theory should not contradict experimental results seems to me a simple requirement.

As far as I understand it, Oliver‘s example of Jane and the apes more or less falls under the cases I excluded from the enigma since they are easily explained (c.f. my “(i) where the observer, or his/her tool, disturbs the observed object“). It has nothing to do with the behaviour of elementary particles under observation that leads to the philosophical dilemma referred to as an enigma, that I admit you were not concerned with.

oh dear oliver your link leads to a PROPoSED...new genus

how de-spirite your are...
grasping at semantic straws

if you can explain...using your own words...
just what the link reveals...i will be supprised...no...astounded

its a gobbildy/cook..of chemical semantics...
not a new species...let alone new genus

CREATED...by by definition...
then only...as a proposal...lol

its so sad
BUT HEY...lets HEAR your FAULSIFYABLES...!...!...!

not just jour despirite attrempts/strawgasping...via google

lol...how easy to expose/those who decieve...
claiming knowledge..they cant grasp/..gasp

sad bro...its just so sad

further as said many times
species evolving is science fact/..WITHIN GENUS

its when the fools..take that step/too far...to/wit..that one genus..evolves..into neo/NEW GENUS..lol..that delusion enters..

that fools..go that one step beyond..what science can validate

PRESENT>>>YA>>>FAULS_IF_FIABLES
no faulsifyable's...NO SCIENCE

Dear Banjo and George,

I am aware of the issue of the effect of observation on an experiment, but for the moment don't recall the source. But have heard of of it several times. It would apply to a larger scale than QM.(The state of the apes is not resolved by Jane's observation). Yes, as little as I understand it, theoretically observing the atmosphere of Venus alters the experimental condition.

Above, " 'Does quantum theory suggest that, in some mysterious sense, we ARE a cosmic centre?' ” (George), caught my eye. I thought two things (a) "We" is too big and (b) if "we" have a priviledged position, it is likely to be relative; i.e., everything has from its perspecive would see itself the centre. The is no priviledged position. Of course, this could all be my nonsense, when making comment on a small quote.

I believe Roger Penrose is exploring the possibility of QM consciousness.