WHO is GOD in terms of SCIENCE ?

[Arioch]

@ughaibu --

I was simply responding to Hansda's rather obvious attempt to twist quantum theory into something it's not.

@hansda --

And your attempt to use the wrong definition of an observer when talking about quantum phenomena is dishonest, especially since you've known better for quite a while now.

 

[river]

Irrelevent

 

[hansda]

An observer is any system that can accept information. It can be a slice of cheese, a person, a rock, a dog, a carbon nontube, an atom, an egg, etc.

Is this your own definition of 'Observer of Physics' ?

OR

You have some reference ?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Is this your own definition of 'Observer of Physics' ?

OR

You have some reference ?

It's the raw definition of information theory which all sciences are based on (keywords highlighted):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer#Physics

"In information theory, any system which receives information from an object."

If you want to see specific physics definitions which say the same thing but in laymans terms, here you go (keywords highlighted):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(physics)

"In quantum mechanics, "observation" is synonymous with quantum measurement and "observer" with a measurement apparatus and observable with what can be measured."

"In general relativity the term "observer" refers more commonly to a person (or a machine) making passive local measurements..."

 

[hansda]

It's the raw definition of information theory which all sciences are based on (keywords highlighted):



If you want to see specific physics definitions which say the same thing but in laymans terms, here you go (keywords highlighted):

As per wiki , there are multiple definitions of 'observer' . You can refer this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon also .

In SR speed of Light is constant with relative to an observer .

So, there is no standard definition of the term 'observer' in Physics .

 

[Arioch]

@hansda --

Crunchy didn't say that it was the "standard" definition, just that it's the "raw" definition. Note the word he chose carefully as there's a very good reason he chose it.

 

[hansda]

@hansda --

Crunchy didn't say that it was the "standard" definition, just that it's the "raw" definition. Note the word he chose carefully as there's a very good reason he chose it.

Thats what I am saying that a standard definition for the term 'observer' in Physics should be made ; so that there should be no confusion with this term 'observer' .

 

[Arioch]

@hansda --

That would be impossible. The best way to avoid such confusion is to know what you're talking about. Are we talking quantum theory? If so then we need to stick to the definitions used in quantum theory. And the same rule applies to all of the sciences.

 

[hansda]

@hansda --

That would be impossible. The best way to avoid such confusion is to know what you're talking about. Are we talking quantum theory? If so then we need to stick to the definitions used in quantum theory. And the same rule applies to all of the sciences.

If the terms 'mass' , 'energy' and 'force' can be defined ; why not the term 'observer' can be defined ?

 

[Arioch]

@hansda --

For the exact same reason you're having trouble, there are too many definitions. The raw definition that Crunchy gave you is probably as good as it's going to get. The best solution is not to come up with another definition but to know what the fuck you're talking about, which would mean that you would have to do some research.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Exactly what Arioch said. ^^^

 

[kx000]

GOD is omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresent .


In terms of SCIENCE :


Who/What is omnipotent ?

Nothing we know of

Who/What is omniscient ?

Nothing we know of

Who/What is omnipresent ?

Nothing we know of