What we observe can be effected by the act of observation yes and no. To explain I will present a scenario. I decide I want to observe lions in their natural habitat. I position as close as possible to the family of lions. I observe the lions sniffing and pawing at my jeep, one even attempts jumps onto the jeep. Because of this I conclude that lions are curious creatures when a “foreigner" enters into their territory. This is a yes scenario. The “no” would occur if I planted some undetectable observation equipment into their habitat and observed them from somewhere else. Then I would watch a “foreigner” invade the lion’s territory and not come out. In this case I would conclude that lions are extremely territorial. This is VERY different from the conclusion that lions are curious creatures. So yes, the very act of observing can affect our observation in that we are creating what we observe. No, if the observer is aware of this possibility and takes precautions to make sure this does not happen.
The weakness in Roebke’s thesis was that I lost interest. The entire reading was him continuously telling the same situation of scientists trying to test whether or not realism is a part of Quantum Mechanics. This was my understanding of what the entire article was about. The very argument however makes no sense to me because you can’t really separate anything from reality.
.jpg)
I do not believe I completely understood what Roebke was talking about. So, for whoever decides to comment on this post, if you have a good understanding of what Roebke is talking about, please feel free to help me out.
ReplyDelete