I don't even know if this would be anything but junk science, to be honest. I don't know that there is something wrong with it, I don't suspect to the point that I would dismiss it but, there are trends in the scientific field that are way too humanist for their own good. Maybe observation does nothing and we just like to think it does?

The conclusion wouldn't be that you can sprout tentacles out of your arm

We definitely experience the effect

so it shouldn't be discarded

That does not mean that a phenomenon is dependent on observation. But I understand the point.

it just means that phenomena are the result of shoulders bumping, more or less. Without such "perturbations" the world is indeterminate potential I guess. That doesn't really matter though.

Since we can't know the answer

No. At least, not off of the models we have now. All of the uncertainty gives egg heads something to do.

We'll never get there

But once we stop trying, we are just going to atrophy. That is the tragedy of the workaholic. I guess we could breed temperaments that make do with uncertainty without stagnance and atrophy.

We could devote energy into how to live instead

ethics

Not to mention the other pillars.

Imagine all of the theorizing that we get today going into high art. Music, painting, sculpting: all of these ideas of how the more subtle world would look to our material eyes and sound to our ears. It would at least be more interesting to me.

It would hit an epistemological crisis all the same

Don't the artsy types thrive in crisis? They love it.

"well fuck, how do you write a good tune."

All of the musicians disagreeing though working at their very best could make an all new explosion of genres and enhance already existing ones. See, they would be creating something. That would fulfill them even with all of their doubts.

yeah but that's not usually the result of theorizing

Theorizing is deconstructive

rationality that is

It's not a creative force

I disagree. Look at Marilyn Manson. His theorizing on the occult led to many of his albums.

I don't know what you mean by his theorizing

I disagree that it can't be creative or lend itself to creativity, not that theorizing isn't deconstructive.

It's literally how the understanding works: it breaks down the "whole" into parts to reason about it. A la categorization

Sitting around and theorizing on how something is. What it is like. What it's properties are. These deep thoughts lead to impressions in the mind that lead to creativity.

How is quantum physics humanist

You know all that wank music out there? The stuff that relies heavily on rational faculties as opposed to our non-rational ones? It doesn't leave a strong impression does it

That's the sort of shit that is derived from artistic theories

I don't think marlyin Manson's aspirations of being the next Alice Cooper using his library card to read occult literature to shock mommy is really a strong example.

@profagonist It isn't. However, the immediate conclusion that a phenomenon must be experienced to have certain properties is. There have been a lot of physicists who rent seek from government grants jumping to these conclusions and others in the "string theory" line of thinking just to publish something. The assumption that humans hold a central role in the universe is humanist.

@༺པརབྱར།བསངཇ༻ I would assume that the wank music is there to entertain and to masquerade as art, obsessed with finding "unique" notes and being too self fascinated. When you have deep impressions of immaterial forces, it isn't very rational. When you want to capture an impression and relay it as deeply as possible through your medium, it could make for good music depending on the skill and investment of the artist.

I don't think that's a belief many physicists hold, actually I'd say most think the opposite

@༺པརབྱར།བསངཇ༻ Furthermore, we have a dearth of skill among the arts these days. Hopefully, the skilled will elbow the unskilled out of the way. Mediocrity really gets more attention than it deserves.

@profagonist I agree. But THOSE physicists have real jobs.

Physics is basically about arguing against that anthropocentrism

I agree, again, but that does not mean that everyone with the piece of paper sticks to studying physical laws.

I feel like you're describing more Deepak Chopra than a scientist

The Tao of Physics and all that. But that is the subject that gets the most reads though.

@༺པརབྱར།བསངཇ༻ I SEE IT MORE AS A FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM

THE OBSERVER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE HUMAN

THUS THE ACT OF OBSERVATION LINKS OBSERVER AND OBSERVED