quantum

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Everyone,

I came across an article that summarizes a survey of physicists and their like about the quantum world. It probably gets too much in the weeds for many here, but I still share it because it brought up some things often coming up here in the forum. The essence of the survey is that quantum physicists themselves have many views on what quantum physics actually describes and means, with quite a variety of different views. The link is here: 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-divided-on-what-quantum-mechanics-says-about-reality/

One thing hitting me, that seems to run (hiddenly) throughout the discussion, is that the observer is the observed. At many levels, including the multitude of opinions reflected in the survey results themselves! But an essential one, to me, that seems to rarely be addressed, is the underlying assuming operating (in thought) of fixed/local/autonomous/isolated/separate particles or objects. We seem to miss that this is part of our observing, not necessarily "out there" (out where?). If nothing is separate to begin with, then phenomena such as superposition and entanglement/nonlocality may not be so hard to grasp, perhaps (although I am no physicist.....). 

Secondly, there seems to me to be an assuming operating that describing actuality to perfection is somehow a real possibility. Is this true, and what would this actually mean? Can describing describe itself even as it describes, or must it be separate from itself to describe itself? Is this possible??? It seems to me that the beauty of science lies in its ability to approximate what we see and experience to such a marvelous degree. And if we don't assume an endpoint or "final" view, in other words, that actuality is something static and separate from ourselves and our describing, then all the disagreements etc are simply part of the exploring, which may have no endpoint at all. We may be only assuming there is. 

The metaphor of a hyperbolic curve comes to mind in this context, wherein a mathematical equation forms a line that gets ever closer to the x or y axis, yet never can "touch" it, even out to infinity. At infinity the line is infinitely close to the line, and at the same time infinitely far away (never touches). Same for the approximation of "ultimate reality"? Which leaves thought where: thought itself is now the very mystery it has been trying to capture, the observer and observed simply collapse into....

Anyway, just my own musings here that I decided to share. I find how we are looking at all this to be what is truly interesting. Maybe exploring this has something to do with collapsing.....

-Dan

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Everyone,

Just a brief follow up around all this that just surfaced. We seem to be more interested in the content of what we see, its fascination etc, than in how we are looking at it all in the moment, is creating this very content. This seems truly fascinating.....  -Dan

[Sheri R]

Hi Dan, 

Thank you for this article. 

What struck me almost immediately, is that each physicist is also only 'measuring' or 'interpreting' from 'their' particular point of observation. I think I am trying to say the same thing you said in your follow up statement: they (we) seem more interested in 'what is being seen' than in 'how' seeing/observing is happening. 

I deeply appreciate that physicists are divided in a very similar way medicine often is.....or religion........or politics 😆.  This invites an openness for 'us' to explore 'our' immediate experience, play and use 'our' own creative language and/or expression, not rely on experts or conceptual understanding. And, more importantly, as you have pointed out, we can then set assumptions aside. (As an aside, from this perspective, this is why art is infinitely more revealing than science)
The mysterious expression and incomprehensible originality of spontaneous arising is exhilarating! Creation creating!  This has become significantly more interesting than the exhausting race to some invisible and concrete consensus as to what is going on. 

For what it's worth, it seems to me, describing can and does describe itself! It's just being 'describing' in that moment. Or, 'describing' is arising. As to its accuracy.....perhaps that is what we can not know ( and really who cares, 😂) . For me, that describing is happening, is fascinating enough! 

With Metta, 

Sheri 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Diehard Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diehard-grou...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAGgGDoACxzHmfqREn80xfYhhqU74O1Qs5-%3DC3oeZ-977WbsV1w%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Sheri Rink Dip.PT, Acup., RYT

[Rani Madhavapeddi]

Dan et al,

One of the biggest elephant in the room for the observer is the observed is that particles exist in one way the act of observation changes the nature of what is observed. So we are technically measuring not what exists but what is observed.

Examples: 

• Double-Slit Experiment: In the famous double-slit experiment, particles behave like waves when unobserved, creating an interference pattern. However, when scientists attempt to determine which slit the particle goes through (observing its path), the wave-like pattern disappears, and the particles act like solid objects.

They got a noble for that. This concept of things appearing to be what they are not is called ‘Maya’.

My 2 cents 

Rani Madhavapeddi Patel

On Aug 8, 2025, at 6:58 PM, Sheri R <anne...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/CAAfzGUSzHSpuFn0q95HF9mZZj3d_vRV20ybLHe7m7z1PtjqwRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Kilpatrick]

Sheri, Rani and All,

Thank you both for coming in, very much. 

Rani, I appreciate your example. Yes, it seems that what the experiment is actually revealing is our very way of observing to begin with. But our minds continue to focus on the content or information, as if this is separate from the experimental design and our way of looking at it. As if it is wholly untainted by anything, existing autonomously. Imho, we are not realizing that this is all part of our way of observing/experiencing. So the observer implicitly remains somehow separate from the observed, what is being explored. If you really look closely, we are moving in all of it, as our consciousness, imho. The actuality is that how we are looking at it all can't be separated from what we see or conclude. The possibility of collapsing.... 

The observer is the observed is not just more content or information, it is pointing to something that may be ongoing now. This may be how we are looking at the observer is the observed now, happening in full bloom. The observer is being the observed.... The phrase is not conveying information, the phrase comes out of and points to action itself. It is realizing what is happening in real time.  Receiving all this as information is the observer separate from the observed, happening in the moment. What a wondrous thing to behold! And in this may be the falling away of any need for information/knowledge/conclusions (in our psychological world).  

Sheri, I'm with you here about the first-handedness of being in direct contact with or not distant from ourselves. Exploring... And yes, all this gets expressed in its own way. So being able to look beyond words themselves to the wordless pointed to seems to be part of this exploring. Coming to see the assumings that might be operating in how we hear, see, use words, and see each other etc. How does this revealing happen? Is there a how? To me, this is where the rubber meets the road. It is not transcendent, but extremely practical and unavoidable if we are interested in what is actually going on.

From the perspective of our daily lives, it seems to me that the observer is the observed distills down to something very simple yet non-trivial: self-awareness. A vast mystery, as to its nature and how it comes to pass. I can't see how self-awareness can ever be abstract or turned into something abstract. It happens, and when it does, we are affected in a non-abstract way. Our very perceiving is affected. And it may give rise to self-awareness in other circumstances, unexpectedly. Assumed realities are being revealed.....

As seen from here, -Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diehard-group/AEEE2611-DA4E-49A6-B2DB-FDAE032F6E7A%40gmail.com.