Re: Observer and natural law

Dear Andrei,

By the way, objectivity and subjectivity and the role of observer have
been extensively discussed in the context of distinguishability and
indistinguishability; a typical opinion is

Denbigh, K. G.; Denbigh, J. S. Entropy in Relation to Incomplete
Knowledge; Cambridge University Press: London, 1985.

I know what you discussed is more general case.

I am looking forward to reading your comments on molecular recognition.

Shu-Kun
 

abir.igamberdiev@risoe.dk wrote:
>
> Dear Pedro and Colleagues,
>
> Thanks Pedro for new themes for the discussion. We certainly need to be
> aware of entering the observer in the picture of reality. The latter
> consists of natural laws, and there are alternative views on the law either
> as external and objective - or as our subjective imprint on some indefinite
> reality. But what means "objective"? In our culture it seems usually as a
> synonym to external. Generally it is not true, "objective" means that under
> the action of these constructs (natural laws), individual pictures of the
> world are synchronized and we can communicate consistently. In other words,
> the formulation of natural law implies that mental and physical events
> consistently correspond each other as different modes of the same reality.
> We discover this reality in our observation and communication.
>
> Arising to Leibniz, the idea in general is following: the correspondence of
> mental and physical events could be possible only at certain values of
> fundamental constants and correspondingly at certain formulations of natural
> laws. This needs further substantiation, but the fact that we all have
> similar picture of the world can be substantiated by some "objective" values
> for realizing observation (quantum measurements), otherwise the individual
> pictures will be inconsistent to each other. This view is essentially
> Platonic, and I cannot see any other possibility of consistent explanation
> of natural law and anthropic principle. In this framework, the natural law
> represents some canon of perfection realized in selection of our world from
> a set of possible worlds.
>
> These topics again seem to be metaphysical, but they imply some virtual
> experimental procedure. Is really the set of existing natural laws and
> fundamental constants unique for constructing image of real world, or other
> observable worlds are possible at different values of fundamental constants
> and different sets of elementary particles. The problem is that this task
> may not be resolved by finite means. We may find out by the finite procedure
> that some worlds are not observable, but we may miss important links in
> proving that some worlds are observable. This reminds me the anecdote about
> Wolfgang Pauli who asked God why such a particle as muon exists. When God
> was explaining him this, Wolfgang Pauli exclaimed "Aber das ist ganz
> Falsch!" and pointed the error in God's calculations.
>
> Another topic (molecular recognition) I will comment in a separate
> forthcoming letter. I think this topic may develop into concrete approach
> where crucial outputs can be made.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrei
Received on Sun May 26 13:59:03 2002