Numbers...

[Valo]

Lol. Binary numbers might create emotions in people who understands them and have a connection with what they mean. I'm not sure that what base you use is relevant to what I was expressing about numbers and colours generating a sense of feeling. I think they are analysing their numbers and finding ways that the numbers connect. I'm sure if the numbers connected via a different mathematical method, then that would be shared instead relative to their understanding and knowledge. It is personal to them. The numbers aren't magic. Their are just numbers. They are finding the magic in how they perceive the numbers and how they think the numbers connect to the universe and to their experiences.

Like, could we do the same with the alphabet? Do we have letters that keep showing up? That create feelings for us. Would a different language have a different set of rules and meanings?

I agree you have the subjective experience with base10 numbers and the English alphabet, but those are experiences generated by our minds. I think the point that Marcus and I are pushing back on is some idea that these experiences are created by the numbers themselves. Our brains are creating the feelings and patterns, the numbers don't have any of these inherent properties in themselves.

What is magic?

[drumdude]

There is even a theory associated with this that discusses the idea that it is the observer who determines the static state.

The Many Worlds interpretation requires no observer to collapse the wave function. And it's much more elegant and simple.

[drumdude]

I agree you have the subjective experience with base10 numbers and the English alphabet, but those are experiences generated by our minds. I think the point that Marcus and I are pushing back on is some idea that these experiences are created by the numbers themselves. Our brains are creating the feelings and patterns, the numbers don't have any of these inherent properties in themselves.

What is magic?

Curiously, this is a pet peeve of Daniel Peterson... is that you, Daniel?

[Valo]

What is magic?

.
Curiously, this is a pet peeve of Daniel Peterson... is that you, Daniel?

Funny

[Valo]

There is even a theory associated with this that discusses the idea that it is the observer who determines the static state.

The Many Worlds interpretation requires no observer to collapse the wave function. And it's much more elegant and simple.

Well how would you know if there is no observer?

It's like saying, base 10 is arbitrary because in some possible wolrd we have 8 fingers.

But there are observers. Unless you deny yourself?

[Res Ipsa]

Exactly. No 'magic.' If I recall correctly, it was Sagan who said he was surprised there weren't more coincidences found by 'searchers', given how utterly normal and common coincidences are. And coincidences in numbers? Even with the cheats and multiple methods and mid-analysis rule changing and creative interpretation some posters in this thread have engaged in, there is no mystical, magical meaning to the coincidences they conjure p.

This assumes meaning is objective. Because you can't see or find meaning in something doesn't deny the meaning that someone else sees or finds.

At the base of Western civilization is the notion that all people are sovereign, free to pursue their own happiness in life, so long as they respect the sovereignty of others not them.

It's not even certain what it is we are looking at when we see photons reflected from an object in to our eyes where the light gets converted in to an electrical impulse that is sent to a part of the brain that processes visible light and your brain creates an image, supposedly, of this object. But nobody knows what it "means".

In quantum mechanics there is the famous schrodinger cat's experiment and one question it illustrates is does our observation of an object determine it's state? When we get to the nitty gritty we see things aren't so clear.

All things at a quantum level seem to be everything at once or in all states simultaneously. There is even a theory associated with this that discusses the idea that it is the observer who determines the static state.

The is the classic crackpot paradigm: Scientists can't explain everything, so the crap I make up is just as good.

[Res Ipsa]

The Many Worlds interpretation requires no observer to collapse the wave function. And it's much more elegant and simple.

Well how would you know if there is no observer?

It's like saying, base 10 is arbitrary because in some possible world we have 8 fingers.

But there are observers. Unless you deny yourself?

If there are always observers, then your reference to Schroedinger's cat is meaningless.

[Valo]

Well how would you know if there is no observer?

It's like saying, base 10 is arbitrary because in some possible world we have 8 fingers.

But there are observers. Unless you deny yourself?

If there are always observers, then your reference to Schroedinger's cat is meaningless.

The observer gets to determine their reality. It's not set in stone, maybe.

[Res Ipsa]

If there are always observers, then your reference to Schroedinger's cat is meaningless.

The observer gets to determine their reality. It's not set in stone, maybe.

That's not what the Schroedinger's cat thought experiment shows. It does not assert that the observer has any control over whether the cat is alive or dead when the box is opened. Nor can the observer effect the result of the double slit experiment through force of will. PG can correct me, but what you are talking about is the result of "taking a measurement", not the characteristics of the observer.

[Valo]

The observer gets to determine their reality. It's not set in stone, maybe.

That's not what the Schroedinger's cat thought experiment shows. It does not assert that the observer has any control over whether the cat is alive or dead when the box is opened. Nor can the observer effect the result of the double slit experiment through force of will. PG can correct me, but what you are talking about is the result of "taking a measurement", not the characteristics of the observer.

I didn't assert that it did.