What can be claimed about that which isn't measured?

[md65536]

This is a spinoff of another thread that I don't want to derail as it appears to be thisclose to being amicably resolved.

 

I have never advocated that the existence of anything depends on an observer. What I have said is that what we observe is reality — not an illusion.

What does it mean for something to exist without an observer?

Does this mean that it remains unobserved, ie. unmeasured?

 

Clearly, observation should include indirect observations, so that any measurement that is derived from other measurements would be considered "observed".

 

So then, if something remains unmeasured, can we say that its measure has no possible bearing on what we observe?

If it has a bearing, or if it has a deducible effect on reality, can't that be considered a measurement of the thing's existence?

 

Then, if you can speak of the existence of something that has no bearing on what is observed, can't you also equally validly speak of the existence of other things too? Then, the existence of something that hasn't been measured implies the existence of anything and everything that hasn't been measured. (However, this maybe can't be used to deduce a contradiction, because deducing the existence of something impossible only proves that the impossible thing doesn't exist, not that all deducible unmeasurable things don't exist.)

 

Therefore anything that's possible, exists. The alternative is that no unmeasured aspect of anything, can be said to have a real existence.

I do advocate that the existence of anything depends on an observer.

 

 

Is my reasoning unreasonable?

[Iggy]

Would a venn diagram like this work?

 

 

'Something' would have to be real to be measured, but there would be, and could be, real and unmeasured/unobserved things.

[md65536]

Would a venn diagram like this work?

 

'Something' would have to be real to be measured, but there would be, and could be, real and unmeasured/unobserved things.

 

I was using the words measure and observe essentially interchangeably. To observe something, you are measuring some aspect of it.

 

I disagree that something must be real to be measured, but maybe you're right. Couldn't something illusory be measured? Or would the measured aspects of an illusion be considered "real" aspects of it?

 

Are there any examples of what a "real and unmeasured/unobserved" thing might be?

A theorized thing might satisfy the criteria, but that wouldn't be considered "real", only theorized to be real.

 

 

I suppose that something that remained unobserved until today, could be deduced to have existed yesterday, even though it was still unobserved.

[dimreepr]

I was using the words measure and observe essentially interchangeably. To observe something, you are measuring some aspect of it.

 

I disagree that something must be real to be measured, but maybe you're right. Couldn't something illusory be measured? Or would the measured aspects of an illusion be considered "real" aspects of it?

 

Are there any examples of what a "real and unmeasured/unobserved" thing might be?

A theorized thing might satisfy the criteria, but that wouldn't be considered "real", only theorized to be real.

 

 

I suppose that something that remained unobserved until today, could be deduced to have existed yesterday, even though it was still unobserved.

 

It has been deduced that a planet sized diamond is floating in space somewhere. We know it's out there we just haven't seen it yet

[Iggy]

I was using the words measure and observe essentially interchangeably.

good, yes, I agree

 

I disagree that something must be real to be measured, but maybe you're right. Couldn't something illusory be measured? Or would the measured aspects of an illusion be considered "real" aspects of it?

I've always thought of something being real if it can be, at least in principle, measured. But, I have to admit the idea could get murky. Like you say with an illusion. Would the axe murderer in my nightmare be 'real' and 'observed'?

 

Are there any examples of what a "real and unmeasured/unobserved" thing might be?

A theorized thing might satisfy the criteria, but that wouldn't be considered "real", only theorized to be real.

 

 

I suppose that something that remained unobserved until today, could be deduced to have existed yesterday, even though it was still unobserved.

Yeah, I think someone in the 1950's could say that the far side of the moon was real.

[md65536]

It has been deduced that a planet sized diamond is floating in space somewhere. We know it's out there we just haven't seen it yet

But how do you know? What is the evidence, and is that evidence based on indirect measurements?

 

 

Wait a minute, I think I've got off the track I meant to be on.

My intention was to discuss whether something that hasn't been measured by any observer can meaningfully be said to exist.

I'm not talking about whether something exist that hasn't been measured by a particular observer (the question of whether existence is universal, or whether what exists for one differs from what exists for another -- and related topics like parallel universes and all that -- would be something for another thread).

 

So I think we could treat objects that "we know [are] out there we just haven't seen it yet" that would have been observed by others (for example by any matter that interacts with the diamond planet, including gravitationally) as measured.

 

 

 

My argument is basically,

1) If it has some property that can be measured, such that there are at least two different values that the measurement can take, then the measurement must have some effect on reality. Otherwise, if there is only one possible value or if there is no difference between a reality where it was measured and the same reality except that it wasn't measured, then nothing has been measured. That is, if no information is acquired, nothing has been observed.

2) If it hasn't been observed/measured, then no information about it has been acquired, so there is no discernible difference to reality that could be caused by it. Otherwise, the discernible difference would constitute a measurement. The bare minimum of measurable properties might be the property of whether or not it exists[edit] whether or not it has anything measurable at all.

 

What I'm wondering is, is there anything for which this doesn't apply?

An equivalent question might be, is there anything that we can know about, without it making any difference to reality?

 

 

If we can say "There must be a diamond planet" or "There must be a Higgs boson", is that because its existence leaves some mark or signature on reality, that wouldn't be there if the thing didn't exist? Or is it possible to purely theoretically deduce the existence of something, when there would be no measurable difference to reality or our experience of reality whether or not it even exists?

 

 

 

 

 

Or if I haven't quite got around to being comprehendable yet, let me try putting it a different way.

Say there is something that may or may not exist.

Further suppose that reality is experienced exactly the same whether it exists or not.

Then one cannot determine from experience alone whether that thing exists.

The question is: Is there any way besides experience, that something can be proven to exist?

 

If so, it could not be experimentally confirmed, because the results of the experiment would be the same whether it exists or not.

 

 

So what could we possibly know about anything that exists independent of its observation?

If we suppose that there is something that exists independent of its effects on reality, what's stopping us from supposing that the universe is completely filled with all kinds of things that exist with no effect on reality?

 

 

Edit:

I'm wondering if there is any example of a thing whose existence is both proven, and has no measurable consequence.

I conjecture that there is no such thing.

A problem for me is that I suspect that it is impossible to prove that there can be no such thing, because...

 

 

One could always suppose that NOTHING exists, and everything is the product of imagination or hallucination or whatever, and then all measurements would also be imaginary... and yet there might be STILL no difference in the experiencing of this imaginary universe relative to an actual universe with real existence. Therefore it would be impossible to prove from experience alone that anything physically exists. Therefore any definition of physical existence that can separate "true physical reality" from a possible illusion of reality, must be independent of experience. No completely reliable experiential evidence of such a reality would be possible, unless there is some kind of observation that could not be unreal (imaginary, illusory, faked, computer simulated, or whatever).

 

 

 

I've always thought of something being real if it can be, at least in principle, measured. But, I have to admit the idea could get murky. Like you say with an illusion. Would the axe murderer in my nightmare be 'real' and 'observed'?

Sure?

I think that we should discuss things in the most general sense, so not limiting ourselves to things that have a physical presence or mass or whatever.

The property of a dreamed axe murderer existing or not might be simply "was it dreamed of?", and the memory of it would be an effect of the measurement of the dream of the axe murderer.

 

Anyway this idea's very different from what I'm wondering. With this idea, we have something we could claim has been measured and we're wondering whether or not it exists. In other examples, we're wonder about something we could claim exists, whether or not it's been measured.

Edited January 21, 2012 by md65536

[Iggy]

Sure?

I think that we should discuss things in the most general sense, so not limiting ourselves to things that have a physical presence or mass or whatever.

Oh, yes, I certainly agree with that. Adding 'physical' things to the venn diagram I'd put like:

 

 

so that some things are measurable and real, but not physical... like energy. I wouldn't say that gravitational potential energy is physical (or a physical thing), but I would say that it is real and can be measured. No, I didn't mean to imply otherwise... only that we'd have to be careful, or at least very specific, with what we mean by 'real' and 'observed'.

 

The property of a dreamed axe murderer existing or not might be simply "was it dreamed of?", and the memory of it would be an effect of the measurement of the dream of the axe murderer.

I agree -- that would be the way I'd look at it

 

Anyway this idea's very different from what I'm wondering. With this idea, we have something we could claim has been measured and we're wondering whether or not it exists. In other examples, we're wonder about something we could claim exists, whether or not it's been measured.

I think it is an interesting question. I remember reading Einstein's very complicated thoughts about whether the coordinates of the gravitational field in general relativity could be considered 'real' or 'physical' in relation to their being measurable and that type of thing:

 

In the first place I must point out that the distinction real - unreal is hardly helpful. In relation to K' the gravitational field "exists" in the same sense as any other physical entity that can only be defined with reference to a coordinate system, even though it is not present in relation to the system K. No special peculiarity resides here, as can easily be seen from the following example from classical mechanics. Nobody doubts the "reality" of kinetic energy, otherwise the very reality of energy would have to be denied. But it is clear that the kinetic energy of a body is dependent on the state of motion of the coordinate system, with a suitable choice of the latter one can arrange for the kinetic energy of the continuous motion of a body to assume a given positive value or the value of zero. In the special case where all the masses have a velocity in the same direction and of the same magnitude, a suitable choice of coordinate system can adjust the collective kinetic energy to zero. To me it appears that the analogy is complete.

 

Rather than distinguishing between "real" and "unreal" we want to more clearly distinguish between quantities that are inherent in the physical system as such (independent from the choice of coordinate system), and quantities that depend on the coordinate system. The next step would be to demand that only quantities of the first kind enter the laws of physics. However, it has been found that this objective cannot be realized in practice, as has already been demonstrated clearly by the development of classical mechanics. One could for instance consider, and this has actually been attempted, to enter into the laws of classical mechanics not the coordinates, but instead just the distances between the material points; a priori one could expect that in this way the goal of the theory of relativity would be reached most easily. The scientific development has however not confirmed this expectation. She cannot dispense with the coordinate system, and therefore has to use in the coordinates quantities that cannot be construed as results of definite measurements. According to the general theory of relativity the four coordinates of the space-time continuum are entirely arbitrary choosable parameters, devoid of any independent physical meaning. This arbitrariness partially affects also those quantities (field components) that are instrumental in describing the physical reality. Only certain, generally quite complicated expressions, that are constructed out of field components and coordinates, correspond to coordinate-independent, measurable (that is, real) quantities. For example, the component of the gravitational field in a space-time point is still not a quantity that is independent of coordinate choice; thus the gravitational field at a certain place does not correspond to something "physically real", but in connection with other data it does. Therefore one can neither say, that the gravitational field in a certain place is something "real', nor that it is "merely fictitious".

 

Einstein -- November 1918. (about the 7th or 8th paragraph from the bottom.

 

It is really a very complicated issue.

[dimreepr]

But how do you know? What is the evidence, and is that evidence based on indirect measurements?

 

 

Wait a minute, I think I've got off the track I meant to be on.

My intention was to discuss whether something that hasn't been measured by any observer can meaningfully be said to exist.

I'm not talking about whether something exist that hasn't been measured by a particular observer (the question of whether existence is universal, or whether what exists for one differs from what exists for another -- and related topics like parallel universes and all that -- would be something for another thread).

 

So I think we could treat objects that "we know [are] out there we just haven't seen it yet" that would have been observed by others (for example by any matter that interacts with the diamond planet, including gravitationally) as measured.

 

 

 

My argument is basically,

1) If it has some property that can be measured, such that there are at least two different values that the measurement can take, then the measurement must have some effect on reality. Otherwise, if there is only one possible value or if there is no difference between a reality where it was measured and the same reality except that it wasn't measured, then nothing has been measured. That is, if no information is acquired, nothing has been observed.

2) If it hasn't been observed/measured, then no information about it has been acquired, so there is no discernible difference to reality that could be caused by it. Otherwise, the discernible difference would constitute a measurement. The bare minimum of measurable properties might be the property of whether or not it exists[edit] whether or not it has anything measurable at all.

 

What I'm wondering is, is there anything for which this doesn't apply?

An equivalent question might be, is there anything that we can know about, without it making any difference to reality?

 

 

If we can say "There must be a diamond planet" or "There must be a Higgs boson", is that because its existence leaves some mark or signature on reality, that wouldn't be there if the thing didn't exist? Or is it possible to purely theoretically deduce the existence of something, when there would be no measurable difference to reality or our experience of reality whether or not it even exists?

 

 

 

 

 

Or if I haven't quite got around to being comprehendable yet, let me try putting it a different way.

Say there is something that may or may not exist.

Further suppose that reality is experienced exactly the same whether it exists or not.

Then one cannot determine from experience alone whether that thing exists.

The question is: Is there any way besides experience, that something can be proven to exist?

 

If so, it could not be experimentally confirmed, because the results of the experiment would be the same whether it exists or not.

 

 

So what could we possibly know about anything that exists independent of its observation?

If we suppose that there is something that exists independent of its effects on reality, what's stopping us from supposing that the universe is completely filled with all kinds of things that exist with no effect on reality?

 

 

Edit:

I'm wondering if there is any example of a thing whose existence is both proven, and has no measurable consequence.

I conjecture that there is no such thing.

A problem for me is that I suspect that it is impossible to prove that there can be no such thing, because...

 

 

One could always suppose that NOTHING exists, and everything is the product of imagination or hallucination or whatever, and then all measurements would also be imaginary... and yet there might be STILL no difference in the experiencing of this imaginary universe relative to an actual universe with real existence. Therefore it would be impossible to prove from experience alone that anything physically exists. Therefore any definition of physical existence that can separate "true physical reality" from a possible illusion of reality, must be independent of experience. No completely reliable experiential evidence of such a reality would be possible, unless there is some kind of observation that could not be unreal (imaginary, illusory, faked, computer simulated, or whatever).

 

 

 

 

Quantum mechanics predict it's existance so it is possible and given the unimaginable size of the unvirse probability dictates that it must exist it's not a guess.

[mississippichem]

What about mathematical objects? I can never directly observe a vector norm or a metric but they can both be used to define a notion of length in a vector space.

 

These objects show up all over mathematics whether you look for them or not. Everytime you measure something with a ruler, the Euclidian vector norm and whatever metric it came from ensures that your observation of a length is well defined.

 

I guess this gets into whether math is invented or discovered...which its own can of worms really.

[md65536]

What about mathematical objects? I can never directly observe a vector norm or a metric but they can both be used to define a notion of length in a vector space.

 

These objects show up all over mathematics whether you look for them or not. Everytime you measure something with a ruler, the Euclidian vector norm and whatever metric it came from ensures that your observation of a length is well defined.

 

I guess this gets into whether math is invented or discovered...which its own can of worms really.

Yes, and maybe also the meaning of existence when it comes to ideas etc. Also the meaning of observation of ideas... if you don't look for a "metric" but it affects what you measure, can it be said to be observed? Remember, the idea is that if what you experience is no different given the assumption that the thing exists, than given the assumption that it doesn't exist (Ie. no observable difference), then can you still say that it exists?

 

---

 

However, I think my premise is wrong.

My premise is that the existence of something can only be determined through measurement -- its existence must make some measurable difference.

 

However I think instead that I must concede this:

Claim: If something is proven to have a physical existence, that proof must rely on something other than observation.

The "proof" of this claim relies on an acceptance of Descartes' reasoning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

Descartes concluded that the only thing that can be truly determined through experience is the existence of the experiencer.

Therefore if existence of a thing is to be determined by the observation of the thing, it remains to be shown that anything exists at all!

If nothing exists at all, then no observation can prove that something exists. Therefore it cannot be concluded from observation alone that anything exists (it could all be illusory).

 

 

Luckily, I haven't claimed whether or not anything exists... I'll stay away from that one.

Without an answer to that, I can't say that observation alone can prove that something exists.

Therefore if there is some other way of proving that something exists, it does not rely solely on observation.