Any human is not quantum

[questfortruth]

Definition:
Nature is what the observer measures; and the observer is who measures nature.

Thus, the observer is not part of nature. Thus, he and his apparatus are not quantum.

This supposes to solve the following problem:

 

[Left Coast]

Definition:
Nature is what the observer measures; and the observer is who measures nature.

Thus, the observer is not part of nature. Thus, he and his apparatus are not quantum.

This supposes to solve the following problem:

Except observers can observe themselves. Ever look in a mirror?

 

[Nakosis]

Definition:
Nature is what the observer measures; and the observer is who measures nature.

Thus, the observer is not part of nature. Thus, he and his apparatus are not quantum.

This supposes to solve the following problem:

this sense of being an observer is an illusion.

We cannot observe ourselves. The subconscious mind creates an interface which is a simulation of reality for the brain to observe. This creates an illusion of the brain observing a self which the brain identities with. SInce we see this self as separate, which it is, it creates an impression of duality.

The truth would be, the self is not part of nature. The self does not actually exist except as a mental representation created by a physical process of the brain. The "observer" is the physical brain.

 

[MNoBody]

one could abstractly perceive "their self" in such a way, separated, and imagine what could be, however the mind so doing this abstracting is immersed totally in this quantum fabric and is made entirely of it......
there may be a transcendental component/aspect/facet to it though..... no one is really sure past a certain point
[as if there is any sure point to begin from]

 

[Audie]

Tra la ls

 

[paarsurrey]

Definition:
Nature is what the observer measures; and the observer is who measures nature.

Thus, the observer is not part of nature. Thus, he and his apparatus are not quantum.

This supposes to solve the following problem:

What does one understand from the natural word "quantum",. please? Please give one's own understanding, not from a lexicon. Right , please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

this sense of being an observer is an illusion.

We cannot observe ourselves. The subconscious mind creates an interface which is a simulation of reality for the brain to observe. This creates an illusion of the brain observing a self which the brain identities with. SInce we see this self as separate, which it is, it creates an impression of duality.

The truth would be, the self is not part of nature. The self does not actually exist except as a mental representation created by a physical process of the brain. The "observer" is the physical brain.

Does one mean that what man observes in nature happening though seems to him natural but at the same time it is an illusion of his brain, so it can have many dimensions, not one? Right, please?

Regards

 

[Nakosis]

Does one mean that what man observes in nature happening though seems to him natural but at the same time it is an illusion of his brain, so it can have many dimensions, not one? Right, please?

Regards

The brain is capable of mentally simulating almost anything, that would include many dimensions.

That's not to say there are or are not many dimensions in reality but the reality of these dimensions is not necessary for them to be mentally simulated.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The brain is capable of mentally simulating almost anything, that would include many dimensions.

That's not to say there are or are not many dimensions in reality but the reality of these dimensions is not necessary for them to be mentally simulated.

Not my brain --- I must be deficient. Trying to think in 4 dimensions (let alone more) is pretty much beyond my capacity (though I can do it mathematically).

 

[questfortruth]

Except observers can observe themselves. Ever look in a mirror?

A born human is a macroscopic object, so he behaves not quantum. But classicalism has two reasons, one is the above definition of nature, other is what human is big. Observer A, when he measures, measure not another observer B, but nature. Let us adopt the axiom: observer can measure himself only classically because he is big. For example, he can measure his own temperature, blood pressure, weight, etc.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You do it your way, I will do it my way. Everyone happy.

 

[Native]

Thus, the observer is not part of nature. Thus, he and his apparatus are not quantum.

Of course the human observer is a part of nature - but humans makes mechanical apparatus which isn´t natural.

 

[Audie]

Of course the human observer is a part of nature - but humans makes mechanical apparatus which isn´t natural.

Is a wasp nest natural?

 

[Nakosis]

Not my brain --- I must be deficient. Trying to think in 4 dimensions (let alone more) is pretty much beyond my capacity (though I can do it mathematically).

The human brain is capable of processing about 50 tasks at the same time.

This Is How Many Tasks Your Brain Is Processing Right Now

Consciously however it seems we can only focus on one at a time.

I tend to see the conscious self as a very small, insignificant part of the brain.

 

[paarsurrey]

The brain is capable of mentally simulating almost anything, that would include many dimensions.

That's not to say there are or are not many dimensions in reality but the reality of these dimensions is not necessary for them to be mentally simulated.

What about if we humans observe/consider a scenario a natural one, while at the same time it is not natural in reality, please? Right, please?

Regards

 

[Nakosis]

What about if we humans observe/consider a scenario a natural one, while at the same time it is not natural in reality, please? Right, please?

Regards

IMO, we do that all of the time. We use math, logic, language to consider reality/nature.

Consider your computer display. There is a lot of information going on in the background. This information you can't see but it is all a physical process. This information has been organized and presented in a way that you are able to consciously make sense of it.

The display is also physical and works entirely on known physical processes. The information you are seeing is only a representation of the actual data. The words you read represent the data keeping in mind it would be impossible for you to see the actual data.

In the same way, the brain takes all of this data/information and presents it to our conscious awareness through an interface, a representation of all the data that is gathered and organized by the brain.

We have to assume this representation is an accurate representation of the reality we exist in. It's not really but it is close enough that we manage.

When we imagine something, like a red ball, the brain uses the same "circuitry" to visualize a physical red ball. The difference being that you are conscious of doing this. You know it is not real.

For example, the color pink does not exist in reality. It is not part of the "visible" spectrum. However, we see pink. We see something in what we presume is part of physical reality which does not exist. It is an interpretation of information that gets displayed to our conscious awareness as a color.

What we see and accept as reality is not reality. It is a representation of reality.

For some folks this representation is different. Some people are colorblind. Their brain does not interpret the information it receives the same as those who are not colorblind.

 

[paarsurrey]

IMO, we do that all of the time. We use math, logic, language to consider reality/nature.

Consider your computer display. There is a lot of information going on in the background. This information you can't see but it is all a physical process. This information has been organized and presented in a way that you are able to consciously make sense of it.

The display is also physical and works entirely on known physical processes. The information you are seeing is only a representation of the actual data. The words you read represent the data keeping in mind it would be impossible for you to see the actual data.

In the same way, the brain takes all of this data/information and presents it to our conscious awareness through an interface, a representation of all the data that is gathered and organized by the brain.

We have to assume this representation is an accurate representation of the reality we exist in. It's not really but it is close enough that we manage.

When we imagine something, like a red ball, the brain uses the same "circuitry" to visualize a physical red ball. The difference being that you are conscious of doing this. You know it is not real.

For example, the color pink does not exist in reality. It is not part of the "visible" spectrum. However, we see pink. We see something in what we presume is part of physical reality which does not exist. It is an interpretation of information that gets displayed to our conscious awareness as a color.

What we see and accept as reality is not reality. It is a representation of reality.

For some folks this representation is different. Some people are colorblind. Their brain does not interpret the information it receives the same as those who are not colorblind.

" We use math, logic, language to consider reality/nature."

Notwithstanding all the Math., logic, language at our disposal, is it still possible that what we know to be real nature, it is till not a reality, please?
I ask this question as the Math., logic, language have their own faults, fallacies and limitations and are not 100% accurate. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Nakosis]

" We use math, logic, language to consider reality/nature."

Notwithstanding all the Math., logic, language at our disposal, is it still possible that what we know to be real nature, it is till not a reality, please?
I ask this question as the Math., logic, language have their own faults, fallacies and limitations and are not 100% accurate. Right, please?

Regards

Math/logic try to compensate for the flaws we are aware of in our perceptions of reality. However an inch does not exist in reality, truth tables do not exist in reality.

Math is a language that represents reality. Math relies on measurement. All measurements have a margin of error. It may be necessary for the scientist to understand the inaccuracy. However, for the normal lay-person, it is usually found to be accurate enough that it can be relied on.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Of course the human observer is a part of nature - but humans makes mechanical apparatus which isn´t natural.

Is a wasp nest natural?

Those I´ve observed, don´t contain any mechanical parts

 

[paarsurrey]

Native said: ↑
Of course the human observer is a part of nature - but humans makes mechanical apparatus which isn´t natural.

Those I´ve observed, don´t contain any mechanical parts

In a broader sense everything that humans do whether mechanical or not, becomes a part of nature, I understand. Right, please?

Regards