The set of signals from collectors in the Hubble scope gets turned into electrical signals in transistors (binary), then transmitted on a laser pulse or microwave channel (modulated) back to people, who get an image. But that's all any observation can be, an image. "A typical definition of experiment": A scientific investigation in which variables are controlled. Used to confirm, reject, or modify hypotheses. There is a cost in energy--radiation, sound, etc.--to the (observed) system being measured, which would be "lost" to the environment, and a cost to the (observer) system--in chemical and electrical energy--doing the measuring. The small amount of energy transferred to the observer (measured), projects to a potentially unbounded amount of energy. Except that lifeforms generally don't spend a lot of time or effort on any single observation, it's not that advantageous for most of them, or they have limited energy available for introspection. There is also a transfer from the observer to the external system. This is the work required by the observer to measure it, which again, in terms of the overall system's energy, might be small (and so have only a small effect). Walking to an open fire will absorb some of its energy, this has an effect on the fire (a very small effect). This effect is measurable, in fact, an observer measures this effect by doing the above--although this isn't really obvious (i.e. it's negligible, but it isn't zero). Expectation, is demonstrated by the cat-in-a-box experiment, thought up by Erwin Schrodinger. The decay of the radioactive sample releases a 'particle' due to decay. Or a photon with a lot of frequency, say--weak and electromagnetic forces are connected, so what the hey; There's a 50/50 chance of this occuring in the time-frame that the cat is inside the box. Presumably the cat would "see" the event if it stayed in the box for a long enough time, or would avoid it by not staying inside the box for the interval of time "required" by the probability of decay (the expectation changes). This is the same thing that happens when light is collected over time in astronomy. A single photon isn't a message (it's an indeterminate state), but it can convey the fact that there is at least a probability (50/50?) that another photon will arrive, and the different frequencies (or same frequencies), will be information (a signal). The difference is the information. The photons are connections that don't get seen, until they are entrained by electrons, either in pigment molecules (rhodopsin, chlorophyll--where they singly add up to an overall pattern, because of the discrimination of different colour, plants use them to make sugar, animals with neurons use neurons, and muscle fibres), or in objects that absorb, or reflect them.
Ok. Cesspool. Now we can do whatever we want. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!uke: [fruds theories] me>>> :spank: <<<frud
What's a remark? Why would anyone make a remark? You wouldn't be able to see much if smell and taste were all you could use to see with. Guess why not? It might be that you are a human being who would be pretty lost without your fairly developed visual equipment, or touch. Especially no hearing as well, spatial orientation would be a big hassle. Humans don't have olfactory apparatus that works as well, it's kind of been replaced by the visual/auditory imaging system. Other observer types, with much more evolved and adapted olfactory and taste senses, or say hearing, like dogs, do pretty well if they're blinded. Plenty of animals have evolved the sense of sight away altogether, and can't interact with visible light. But obviously they interact with touch and stereochemical conformality. And infrared radiation is felt by any organism.
Yes. Observations are made using whatever senses are available. The key element to an observation is perception by a thinking mind. Now. A further question presents itself as to how far one should go in defining observation. One might say that one cannot (or should not) call a perception an observation unless the perception is incorporated into some type of schema or model within the mind of the perceiver. Or, perhaps, one should label this something else. This is, of course, purely semantic and depends entirely upon why one is pondering the meaning of the word 'observation' to begin with. Anything else, Mr. Semantic?
What's a remark ? He remarked on her slender finger. I wish I were a lot younger he observed ( remarked )
This has me thinking: By "this", presumably you're meaning observation? Observation is semantic, and depends on why one is pondering its meaning? Or defining a word like observation is? Sounds pretty circular; why would you ponder the meaning of a word, and why would you think of "something else" for a label? Something "purely semantic", is a crock, dude. You can't define meaning by saying "it's semantics"...?
