Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Hm... I suppose this could be mathematically/logically equivalent, but the thing that bugs me in GP's answer (and the way I hear QM talked about in general) is the very concept of an observer. I've never heard a good explanation of why an observer would be a thing - I'm not sure if there could be, without creating some kind of magical realm for it to live in, detached from the rest of physics.


What "an observer" really means, in the context of QM, is a large, approximately classical system interacting weakly with the system being "observed" (such that the interaction can be modeled perturbatively). Humans "observe" photons, but so does a pail of water.

It's a way of framing certain classes of problems, not a distinct sort of entity.


I could be very wrong about this, but I always thought observation was a property of measurement?

IE to get any info, we have to interact with the system, so we "observe it", by say colliding a photon or something.

This action interrupts the existing system.

Once again this could be not the right way of looking at it, but that's always how I've interpreted the observer to not be this magical thing.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: